<div dir="ltr"><br><div class="gmail_quote">---------- Forwarded message ----------<br>From: <b class="gmail_sendername">Steven P. Wells</b> <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:wells@phys.latech.edu">wells@phys.latech.edu</a>></span><br>Date: Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 6:21 PM<br>Subject: Re: [Qweak_bnssa_elastic_ep_authors] Final draft of the elastic ep transverse paper - Comments due by October 17th, 2014<br>To: <a href="mailto:buddhini@jlab.org">buddhini@jlab.org</a><br><br><br><br>
Hi Buddhini,<br>
<br>
Thanks for distributing these documents.<br>
I like the new draft very much. It seems to<br>
focus the motivation on inspiring new models<br>
for low Q^2 calculations, in particular focusing<br>
on the new MUSE experiment to be performed in the<br>
near future. I think that is a good thing.<br>
<br>
That being said, I only have a few comments.<br>
(I used the "preprint" version which labels the lines.)<br>
<br>
The only conceptual ambiguity I found was in line 121,<br>
which starts "PVES experiments are motivated by . . ."<br>
Clearly, PVES experiments were motivated originally to<br>
extract strange quark contributions to nucleon structure,<br>
or in Qweak's case, to extract sin^2 (theta_W). What you<br>
are motivating is the BNSA measurements associated with<br>
the PVES experiments. So, I would change the beginning of<br>
that sentence on line 121 to "Beam normal spin asymmetry<br>
measurements in PVES experiments are motivated by the fact<br>
that . . ."<br>
<br>
OK, now only a few grammar corrections:<br>
<br>
2) Line 91 - the line " ... account for a $\approx 11 %$ . . ."<br>
I would get rid of the "a" so it reads as " . . . account<br>
for $\approx 11 %$ . . ."<br>
<br>
3) Line 105 - change " . . . TPE observable which provide . . ."<br>
change "provide" to "provides".<br>
<br>
<br>
4) Eq. (4) you have the sum of the background contributions,<br>
$$\sum_{i=1}^2 f_i A_i$$<br>
running from 1 to 2, yet you list 3 types of backgrounds for<br>
which you are correcting. Either change the limits of the sum,<br>
or explain why 2 corrections can be lumped into one.<br>
<br>
5) Line 236 - Generally, it is not considered good grammar to<br>
start a sentence with "But", so for this particular sentence,<br>
I would change it to "In contrast, " because you are arguing that<br>
the poor statistical quality of the G0 transverse measurements don't allow<br>
for a clear conclusion, while our measurement will, so I believe that<br>
"In contrast" is appropriate here.<br>
<br>
That's all. Thanks again for all of your hard work<br>
on this paper, and I wish you the best of luck on<br>
its acceptance. I don't think (as a member of the IC<br>
I may be tipping our hand, but don't tell) it will have<br>
a problem passing the IC, but with referees, you never<br>
know (I already relayed my experience with our SAMPLE<br>
transverse result!)<br>
<br>
Best,<br>
Steve<br>
<br>
P.S. Just between you and me, would you be comfortable in<br>
relaying to me what Mark Dalton's objections were? He seems<br>
to be very bright (as I think you are), and I think that his<br>
insight into what, and how, to present in a paper might be<br>
insightful for future Qweak ancillary measurement publications.<br>
Thanks!<br>
<br></div>-- <br><div class="gmail_signature"><div dir="ltr"><font face="georgia, serif">-------------------------------------------------------------------<br>Buddhini Waidyawansa<br></font>Postdoctoral Fellow<br>
C122,<br><div><font face="georgia, serif">12000 Jefferson Ave,</font></div><div><font face="georgia, serif">Newport News, VA 23602.</font></div><div><font face="georgia, serif">TP 757-912-0410</font></div></div></div>
</div>