Differenze

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

--- cms:hin-13-003 [17/09/2013 22:30]
casasso
+++ cms:hin-13-003 [17/09/2013 22:38] (versione attuale)
casasso
@@ Linea 258: / Linea 258: @@
+-----------------------------------------------------------------
 Stefano C.
@@ Linea 264: / Linea 264: @@
 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:
-   o maybe it's too long, and it can be shortened first of all by avoiding repetitions
-   o since the content it's clearly divided into 3 measurements, maybe dividing it in sections accordingly would be good for the readibility
+   --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 figure4
+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)