[Qweak_transverse_prl_comments] Fwd: [Qweak_bnssa_elastic_ep_authors] Final draft of the elastic ep transverse paper - Comments due by October 17th, 2014

[Buddhini Waidyawansa]

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Steven P. Wells <wells at phys.latech.edu>
Date: Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 6:21 PM
Subject: Re: [Qweak_bnssa_elastic_ep_authors] Final draft of the elastic ep
transverse paper - Comments due by October 17th, 2014
To: buddhini at jlab.org



Hi Buddhini,

Thanks for distributing these documents.
I like the new draft very much. It seems to
focus the motivation on inspiring new models
for low Q^2 calculations, in particular focusing
on the new MUSE experiment to be performed in the
near future. I think that is a good thing.

That being said, I only have a few comments.
(I used the "preprint" version which labels the lines.)

The only conceptual ambiguity I found was in line 121,
which starts "PVES experiments are motivated by . . ."
Clearly, PVES experiments were motivated originally to
extract strange quark contributions to nucleon structure,
or in Qweak's case, to extract sin^2 (theta_W). What you
are motivating is the BNSA measurements associated with
the PVES experiments. So, I would change the beginning of
that sentence on line 121 to "Beam normal spin asymmetry
measurements in PVES experiments are motivated by the fact
that . . ."

OK, now only a few grammar corrections:

2) Line 91 - the line " ... account for a $\approx 11 %$ . . ."
I would get rid of the "a" so it reads as " . . . account
for $\approx 11 %$ . . ."

3) Line 105 - change " . . . TPE observable which provide . . ."
change "provide" to "provides".


4) Eq. (4) you have the sum of the background contributions,
$$\sum_{i=1}^2 f_i A_i$$
running from 1 to 2, yet you list 3 types of backgrounds for
which you are correcting. Either change the limits of the sum,
or explain why 2 corrections can be lumped into one.

5) Line 236 - Generally, it is not considered good grammar to
start a sentence with "But", so for this particular sentence,
I would change it to "In contrast, " because you are arguing that
the poor statistical quality of the G0 transverse measurements don't allow
for a clear conclusion, while our measurement will, so I believe that
"In contrast" is appropriate here.

That's all. Thanks again for all of your hard work
on this paper, and I wish you the best of luck on
its acceptance. I don't think (as a member of the IC
I may be tipping our hand, but don't tell) it will have
a problem passing the IC, but with referees, you never
know (I already relayed my experience with our SAMPLE
transverse result!)

Best,
Steve
-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Buddhini Waidyawansa
Postdoctoral Fellow
C122,
12000 Jefferson Ave,
Newport News, VA 23602.
TP 757-912-0410
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: https://mailman.jlab.org/pipermail/qweak_transverse_prl_comments/attachments/20141111/7d79fb7e/attachment.html