[Clascomment] OPT-IN:Cross sections for the gamma p --> K* + Lambda and K *+ Sigma 0 reactions measured at CLAS

[Igor Strakovsky]

Dear Wei, Ken, and all,

I have several comments for your consideration...

1) pg 1, left, para 1, line 13: How you know that one cannot possible to observe
\sigma and \k directly?  If nobody did it before then it does not exclude that 
one can do that.

2) pg 1, left, para 2, Ref [2]: The standard Ref for the Bonn potential is
R. Machleidt, et al., Phys. Rept. 140, 1 (1987). prC01 is a small modification
of the original paper.  You can keep both but you cannot ignore pr87.

3) pg 1, right, para 1, line 5: 'value' of what?

4) pg 1, right, para 2, line 8 or so: If a model does not predict data well and
it does require the introduction of new resonances - that is too much.  That is 
unnecessary to be true.  It is good to try to improve model and do not introduce 
new N*.

5) pg 7, left, para 2: It is too trivial or too technical.  I would skip it.

6) pg 7, left, Ref [10] for Eq (17).  This Ref [10] is unnecessary here 
because that is a well known formula, it known 50 or 60 years.

7) pg 7, left: Why you limited Eq (18) and using 5 terms?  Please spell it out.
Ad-hoc decision does not work here.

8) pg 7, left, bottom line: '2a_0' ==> '2a_0 and then'

9) pg 7, right, para 1, line 2: What '??' means?

10) pg 7, right, para 1: I do not think that Fig 8 is necessary for this paper.
You do not explain what one can possible to learn from this Figure.  I would
skip it.  BTW, your y-axes on Fig 8 have bad labels and no units for a_i.

11) pg 7, right, para 3, line 1: calculated ==> estimated

12) pg 7, right, para 4, line 1: calculated ==> estimated

13) pg 7, right, Eq (20): That is too trivial and you spell out your procedure
in the text already.

14) pg 13, Fig 12: It is good to show theory by curves not symbols.  It will
prevent any confusing of readers

That is all by now
Igor