Hi-
A)A few comments on word choice and typos below:
1) Caption Figure 1: "Top panel"???
Text figure 1: "Statistical....points where smaller..."???
Also, are there any statistical errors shown?
2)Figure 4 Caption: ....systematic errors TEND TO cancel out."
After all, the data compare two different energies
and years.
3)Figure 5 Caption: "...number of participants...for eta=0,????,
3.0 and 4.5".
4)Page 3 2nd paragraph 3rd sentence: "The production of....
collision processes and thus MAY depend on ...."
5)Page 6 4th sentence from the bottom: "This has previously been
attributed....on the number of binary NUCLEON
collisions, N(coll)." I don't think anyone counted
partonic collisions in the codes.
B)A comment on the text:
On page 6 we knock AMPT (last sentence first paragraph)
a little harshly. Kharzeev also doesn't do too well on
the most peripheral reactions in Figure 3 and in Figure 4
and 5 I'd say there about equally good. Why not just
leave off the last part of the last sentence of this
paragraph starting with "but.....collisions"
C)Two comments on physics:
1) As I have said, I believe we have independent evidence
that the distributions become narrower with increased
centrality. This seems counter-intuitive to me and thus
an interesting observation. Perhaps it is worth a
sentence in the paper.
2) We mention the fragmentaion region and even show a
figure. However, there is no indication of the physics
importance either on page 5 or in the conclusions. By
the way: Is .7<eta<1.5 the fragmentation region?
D)Comment on Title:
A agree with those who feel the title is too grandiose
for the conclusion. This paper is neither initiating this
discussion nor resolving it.
Chellis
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Wed Nov 21 2001 - 11:11:17 EST