[Clascomment] OPT-IN: Measurement of Unpolarized Cross Sections and Polarized Cross Section Differences for Deeply Virtual Compton Scattering

[David Ireland]

Dear Nicholas et al.,

Some of these comments may well have been mentioned already:

- Abstract, line 11: unpolaried -> unpolarized

- Abstract, line 15: is it necessary to spell out the authors here?

- p1, line 41: This is the first mention of a three-dimensional description of the nucleon. It would be better to spell out 2 spatial and 1 momentum dimensions here, rahter than later (i.e. line 119).

- p4, figure 5: The labels are too small, and it is difficult to discern the bin boundaries due to the colour scheme - consider using a lighter palette.

- p5, line 347 (and other instances): a bullet list does not look great in a publication - there mey be editorial guidelines that will ask you to change these to regular lists.

- p6, line 392: were -> was

- p7, line 464 and figures 9 - 16: Are these figures strictly necessary for a publication (as opposed to an analysis note)? Is there a more compact way of depicting the effect of the cuts?

- p16, figure 17: the two plots are very difficult to compare with the colour scheme that is used - it may be better not to use this. Figure 18 is a better visual comparison of data and MC, but should be much bigger.

- p20: Acknowledgments: Please also include "the United Kingdom's Science and Technology Facilities Council".

- p25, FIG. 27: This figure needs some tidying up, in my view. The font looks low resolution, and the labels need to have sub- and super-scripts. Also, whilst there is the caveat that the two experiments were different, the data show an average ratio of ~0.9, which is significantly different from 1.0. Are we conclude that the measurements are inconsistent?

Best wishes,

Dave