[Clascomment] OPT-IN: Study of Cascade* Photoproduction from Threshold to W = 3:3 GeV

[Reinhard Schumacher]

Hello Johann et al.,

I have looked over your draft CLAS paper "Study of Xi* Photoproduction
from Threshold to W=3.3 GeV" dated 5-31-18.     I am very glad to see
that this follow-up paper to CLAS's earlier work on the Cascades is
seeing the light of day/publication.    I think the paper is in decent
shape, but there are a number of details that can be improved.   I
must add that I am dubious that you will get this paper accepted as a
Letter because the results are interesting but not very strong.   But
there is no harm in trying.

line 36: what is the evidence that the cascade states are "expected"
to be narrow?   This spot in the paper ought to have a reference to
some basic textbook reason, or state the reason explicitly.

line 47:  Where is it "predicted" that eh total cross section will
level off?   In fact, most photoproduction cross sections do this at
some point, but who says that 4 GeV is special in this case?

Line 51:  should the Nakayama Oh Haberzettl reference come sooner, to
address my questions above?

line 64 use "CLAS"

line 74 75:  There is something seriously wrong with the grammar of
this sentence.   It could be construed as a fragment;   there is a
verb, but the last part of the sentence does not fit.   Try breaking
this into two clear sentences.

line 79: use "becAme".   Pick a tense and stick to it.

line 80:  "The mass of THE particle can be..."   You probably don't
want the definite article here.   Which particle do you mean?

Figure 3:  The caption text never mentions "g11 @ CLAS"  so the reader
will be mystified what this means.   You can fix this in the caption.
Also, the caption must say something about the Xi(1530) data.

The more serious problem is that the Xi (1530) data shown in Figure 3
is never mentioned in the main text!   You need a paragraph to discuss
this part of the results.

line 97:  What is the evidence that the data suggests that the production
is "not from an intermediate s-channel resonance" ?   Is this
explicitly stated in reference 9?   If so, then the sentence should
make that clear.   I know of no general rule that should make this
assertion true.

line 104:   Need a reference to GlueX's efforts in this direction.   I
suggest you contact Paul Eugenio to get the best reference.

line 117 to 119:  It is not clear what the value of these sentences is
in the paper.   You could simply delete them.   They add no value to
the present paper.

References:  Obviously these are in bad shape.   Use standard BibTex
for RevTek 4, I would say, to put these references in standard form.  

That's all for this round.
Cheers,
Reinhard