OPT-IN: Exclusive Ï0p electroproduction off protons in the resonance region at photon virtualities 0.4 GeV2 ⤠Q2 ⤠1 GeV2

[Volker Burkert]

Dear lead authors,
Here are some more comments on minor items.
Volker

Introduction: Should be significantly shortened. But if following sentences remain please make corrections:
line 24: "behind" => "underlying"
line 39: "Analyses ..... has provided.." => "Analyses ... have provided.." 
line 57: " From the studies of data on pi+pi-P electroproduction..." => From the study of pi+pi-p electroproduction....".
line 68: "gpN* electrocouoplings.. " => The gpN* electrocouplings..."
line 79: add reference to V. Braun on LCSR
line 93: for consistency replace " the transition N->N* electroexcitation amplitudes .." with "the gNN* electrocouplings..".
line 115: delete "will" 
line 118-121: make period after "running mass" and start new sentence "They elucidate.."
line 125: end sentence after "numbers" and begin new sentence "They will also shed new light on dynamical ..."
line 150: "has" => "have"  (data is plural datum).
line 159: "for the studies of the .." => "for studies of the.."
line 167: "isospin selection rule"?? Im not sure I would call this a selection rule. Isn't that just an isospin CG coefficient? 
line 174-177: Somewhat awkward sentence. 
line 186: "..validating the credible extraction.." => "''verifying the consistency of the results"   

line 215: four momentum transfer Q^2 => "photon virtuality Q^2"
line219-220: W is not an invariant mass but the (e,e')X missing mass M_X. 

EXPERIMENTAL  SETUP, DATA taking, PARTICLE ID .....
 These sections before "RESULTS and DISCUSSION" are all written in the past tense because CLAS doesn't exist anymore.
 I don't think that is a good choice. 
The paper could have been written at the time CLAS was still operational. I think it is better to write the text in the 
present tense.The fact that CLAS was decommissioned  in 2012 is irrelevant for the paper. The first sentence should end 
after Jefferson Lab. 

line 806: "data support: => "data qualitatively support". (there is no quantitative comparison).
line 850: "a reasonable description" => "na approximate description". 
line 861-863: Rewrite as " In fact, the two lightest of the \Delta states in the third resonance region, \Delta(16201/2- and.
       \Delta{1700}3/2- , decay preferentially ...."    
line 873- 879: A repetition of similar comments earlier. Again "check the credibility" is not a good phrase to use in 
       scientific work. Maybe "confirmation of the analysis results in other channels."

References: 
[2] is now published; Review of Modern Physics, Volume 91,  011003-1