[d2n-analysis-talk] Hall A colab. talk v2

[Brad Sawatzky]

I booked F228 for 12:30--1:30 on Tuesday for a potential practice talk.
It's up to you if you want to do a run through, but at least we'll have
a room if you're interested.


General notes:
- Dark backgounds are dangerous in a presentation since they are prone
  to washing out text.  White on dark can often be a problem, but the
  black (dark) text on the dark background is almost always a bad idea.
  It looks OK on a bright monitor, but that kind of thing tends to wash
  out and become unreadable on a projector.  Be sure to test it on the
  machine you'll be using early next week so you have tiem to change the
  background if needed.

- good set of backup slides


Per-slide notes:
p.5:  should be: "... interacts with it through QED"
      similarly: "... interacts with the surrounding quarks ...  through
      the color force."

p.6
- last bullet:  "d2n is the average ..."  (missing 'the')

p.8
  - Title should be "Kinematic Coverage" (drop 'DIS', since it's a mix)
  - first bullet:  "Data-sets at two beam energies:  4.7 GeV ..."
  - second bullet: 
          - Make sure the x and Q^2 ranges are consistent with each
            other.
          - Note that the 5-pass data set was our 'primary' dataset (and
            is larger than the 4-pass data set)
  - I'd make a single plot showing both kinematic stripes.  That will
    shows the combined kinematic coverage more clearly.  Also note that
    the primary motivator for taking data at two beam energies was to
    set bounds on any Q^2 evolution of the points in the integrand.
  - white text on light colored, 'busy' background at the bottom
    (legiblility issue?)


p.10
  - first bullet:  "... allow us to evaluate d2 exclusively from our
    data"  (as opposed to relying on world data extractions of 'R', etc)
  - grey text on light colored, 'busy' background at the bottom.  I
    think it will be hard to read the bottom line, in particular.

p.11
  - first 2 bullets:  "Trajectory cut ..." instead of mirror cut


p.13
  - diagram won't be clear to anyone unfamilar with the BB detector
    stack -- need to be able to explain diagram clearly and consisely,
    or rework the graphic to be simpler...
    - at minimum, I would crop out the black numbering on the right side
      and expand the size of the figure to make the labling legible

p.14
  - since you're scaling all those histos to have equal area there is no
    information about how many good electrons are being lost along with
    the T2 cut.
    - I don't have a strong opion on changing this plot (since it is
      intended as a qualitative example), but you should be prepared to
      answer questions like the one above, if asked.
    - If you were to change the plot, I would suggest normalizing using
      the tail (ie. E_PSh > 400, or so) since those should (in
      principle) be minimally affected by any cut
    - Ideally, of course, you wouldn't normalize at all and just show
      "raw, +cut1, +cut2, +cut3" all on one plot so you can see the full
      effect.  I realize that is tricky with the 'Rejected by T2'
      histo in particular though...

p.15 
  - Data _were_ taken ...
  - blue on blue won't be legible on the screen

p.16
  - stick a 'Preliminary' on there somewhere, just so it's unambigous

p.17
  - 

p.18
  - Slide title text changed color (grey instead of white)
  - add 'Error bars are stat. only' to note at bottom
  - might be nice to add a reference to Diana's thesis




-- 
Brad Sawatzky, PhD <brads at jlab.org>  -<>-  Jefferson Lab / Hall C / C111
Ph: 757-269-5947  -<>-  Fax: 757-269-5235  -<>- Pager: brads-page at jlab.org
The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new
  discoveries, is not "Eureka!" but "That's funny..."   -- Isaac Asimov