[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

P.S. Just between you and me, would you be comfortable in
relaying to me what Mark Dalton's objections were? He seems
to be very bright (as I think you are), and I think that his
insight into what, and how, to present in a paper might be
insightful for future Qweak ancillary measurement publications.
Thanks!

-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------
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/ad6315f2/attachment.html