OPT-IN: Beam-spin asymmetry Σ for Σ− hyperon photoproduction off the neutron

[Daniel Carman]

Dear Nick et al.,

I have read through the draft of your paper on the linear polarized beam asymmetry
for KY photoproduction include my comments below. If you have any questions, let me
know. I found the paper well written and balanced. The majority of my comments are
in the "clean up" category.

Regards,
Daniel
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Page 1:
 - Affiliations: Some of the affiliations listed are not complete.
 - Abstract:
   - Line 14 and 19. Use "liquid-deuterium".
 - Line 39. Do not include quotation marks on "missing" for its second usage.
 - Line 45. You are not consistent with your usage of "dataset" vs. "data set"
   vs. "data-set" throughout. Please fix your usage. I prefer "dataset".
 - Line 54. Use "... for states that produce ...".
 - Line 56. Use "pseudoscalar".
 - Line 73. Use "... beams, targets, and ...".

Page 2:
 - Line 106. "the D13 state". Which state are you specifically referring to?
   Give proper spectroscopic notation.
 - Line 131. Use "... (ToF) system, and a ...".
 - Line 140. Awkward as written. How about "... to determine the speed of
   charged particles"?
 - Line 141. Use "liquid-deuterium".
 - Add a comma at the end of Eq.(1) for proper punctuation.
 
Page 3:
 - Line 198. Awkward as written. How about "... such systematic effects showed
   that any residual ...".
 - Line 218. Use "MINUIT".
 - Line 226. Use "spectra" and not "spectrums".
 - Line 235. Use "Tagger" for consistency.
 - Line 243. Use past tense in this sentence. "... parameters were measured ...
    the radiator) were varied ... agreement was obtained ...".
 - Footnote 4. End the sentence with a period.

Page 4:
 - Fig. 2 caption. Use "vs.".
 - Line 305, 309, 331. Use "Table" instead of "Tabl.".
 - Line 314. I suggest "... a bound rather than a free neutron target.".
 - Table I has a awkward positioning in the middle of a paragraph. This breaks
   the flow to me.

Page 5:
 - My only real presentation issue in this paper is the purpose of Fig. 3. It is
   not explained why it is included when the same data and curves are included in
   Fig. 4. Is Fig. 3 necessary? Presently I find it a distraction.
 - Fig. 3 caption.
   - Line 6. What D13 resonance?
   - Line 7. Use "... as well as the solution ...".
   - Line 8. Use "... dashed lines), and the ...".
   - What about the newly discovered N'(1720)3/2+ from CLAS analysis? Have you
     asked about the status of this state in the Bonn-Gatchina or isobar model
     basis?
 - Line 329. Use "... kaon events, contributed ...".
 - Line 334. Use "point-by-point".
 - Line 371. Again the mysterious "D13" resonance.
 - Line 378. Use "CLAS Collaboration".
 - Line 385. Use "... angular region, which allowed ...".

Page 6:
 - Line 394. Use "... resonances that have ...".
 - Line 397. Use "... the states in the region ...".
 - Line 409. Use "... 1.568, which determines ...".

Page 7:
 - Table II caption.
   - Line 3. Use "$K\Lambda$ and $K\Sigma" (here is the only place where you list
     the baryon first.
 - Line 437 and footnote 7. Use "Table II.".
 - Footnote 7. Use "(see Ref. [41] for a ...".
 - Line 464. Use "... resonances that have small ...".
 - General: Through you use "fitted" when I believe that you should use "fit" as
   in "the data were fit with a model".

References:
 - Ref. [24]. Incomplete. Should be "... Experimental Physics 2020, 083C01 (2020).".
 - Ref. [27]. Use "CLAS Collaboration".
 - Refs. [26], [27], [39]. You write out full journal name but in other references
   you use abbreviations.
 - Ref. [42]. Here you use last name first, first initial. This is the only place
   you do this. Be consistent and maybe add in a few commas to separate the authors.