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

[Igor Strakovsky]

Dear Johann, Ken, John, and Dennis

Please find enclosed my comments...

Cheers, igor

==========================================================================================
1) Lines 8-10: "Since the  baryons have a narrower intrinsic width than baryons with no strangeness, the excited  states can be seen clearly above background in a mass plot." I do not think this trivial phrase is appropriate for abstract

2) Line 10: "However, few of these excited states have been observed 'with any certainty'." Something is hidden here and I do not feel comfortable to read it.

3) Line 16: I do not think that ref on lattice is appropriate here specifically that lattice is not able to calculate widths.

4) Line 23: Term "missing-baryons problem", as well known, associates with famous paper [R. Koniuk & N. Isgur, Phys Rev Lett 44, 845 (1980)] not with lattice calculations and does not really belongs to lattice

5) Line 28: I cannot agree with term "better" in this context. It is a controversial term because lettice calculations do not use real mass of pions but 400 MeV only. Then there are no info about 
widths and uncertainties of the masses reported by lettice.

6) Line 30: "background - any sample and ref will help readers to understand what are you talking about.

7) Line 92: It is unclear how you determine total cross sections.  It is important for the exp paper.

8) Fig 2 caption: "yields" - after background subtraction?

9) Fig 3: It will benefit this paper to have ref [9] predictions for this plot. Specifically, that the authors of ref [9] are limited members of CLAS Collaboration.

10) Line 103: "CLAS12" - any refs on CLAS12 - such words will confuse readers because nobody will know what you are talking about.

10) Line 103: "GlueX" - the same.  Probably you are talking about GlueX Phase II?

11) Line 119: "largely hadronic process." Something is misleading or wrong here.

12) Ref [2]: Please add publisher.

13) Ref [6]: I do not think that PDG14 is appropriate here. PDG18 is coming in two months or so while PDG16 is available 2 yrs already.