Differenze

Queste sono le differenze tra la revisione selezionata e la versione attuale della pagina.

Link a questa pagina di confronto

Entrambe le parti precedenti la revisione Revisione precedente
Prossima revisione 		Revisione precedente
cms:hin-13-003 [17/09/2013 21:40]
bellan 		cms:hin-13-003 [17/09/2013 22:38] (versione attuale)
casasso
Linea 256: Linea 256:
  
 Tab 1: what is the uncertainty on the <N> and <ET>? We shall write them and also put the relative bars in the relevant plots (see above). Tab 1: what is the uncertainty on the <N> and <ET>? We shall write them and also put the relative bars in the relevant plots (see above).
 +
 +
 +-----------------------------------------------------------------
 +
 +Stefano C.
 +
 +
 +TYPE B
 +
 +- The title does not match exactly the content of the paper
 +
 +- I think that using the 2011 PbPb results as a reference is not 100% fair and the justification given at L150-159 still leave me doubtful, given that there seems to be some tension between the pp single ratios measured in 2011 and 2013
 +
 +- In general the article reads fine to me (even though I am far from being an expert of the topic). Still I think it can be improved:
 +
 +   ​--maybe it's too long, and it can be shortened first of all by avoiding repetitions
 +   ​--since the content it's clearly divided into 3 measurements,​ maybe dividing it in sections accordingly would be good for the readibility
 +
 +- where available and if feasible: overlay theoretical predictions in the plot
 +
 +
 +
 +
 +
 +TYPE A
 +
 +L 44: maybe the list of the cuts can be dropped, since it is repeated at L98
 +
 +L 80: "​electromagnetic"​ what?
 +
 +L 85-86: why quote the luminosity after the cuts? I think it is misleading, even though there is no "​absolute"​ measurement in the paper
 +
 +L 102: no need to say this IMO
 +
 +L 111-112: has it been checked that the resolution does not depend on the event activity? If yes maybe it is wort mentioning
 +
 +L 162: "​global"​ -> "​other"?​
 +
 +L 169: "​and/​or":​ I don't like it
 +
 +L 175: I don't like the abbreviation for variable 1) since it is at the me time difficult to read and does not exactly match the eta coverage which is > 4 but also < 5.2 Consider something like E_{T}^{fwd}
 +
 +Figure 3: consider dropping it and leave only figure 4
 +
 +L 181-185: the binning is discussed in details but I cannot see a justification for this "​complicated"​ choice. If there is one please mention it
 +
 +L 262-265: the statement is not clear to me (probably my fault)
 +
 +