Dear Claus and Jens Jorgen,
Nice job on the paper. Most of my comments have to do with language
and some probably repeat what Michael and others have already noted.
However, since it is clear there is some urgency in getting this out,
I'll just list
what I found. I'm working from the 2.04 draft.
Abstract:
"ratios for are close" should be "ratios are close"
"significant significant" should be "significant"
1st paragraph: (needs help...)
1st sentence: I suggest the sentence be changed from "The ratios of
number of
particles to antiparticles and in particular the..." be changed to
"Particle to antiparticle ratios and, in particular, the ..."
2nd sentence: The sentence is loaded with jargon (transparency,
multiplicity, rapidity, midrapidity)
and reads as a run-on sentence as well. It may not be possible to
avoid the jargon and keep to
the space limits, but I would still suggest splitting the sentence. A
possible wording might be:
"At the ... considerable transparency is expected, even in central
collisions of Au ions.
As a function of the rapidity variable y, this leads to a flat
multiplicity density near mid-rapidity
(y ~ 0), with pbar/p and K-/K+ particle number ratios near unity."
2nd paragraph:
1st sentence: General comment: The emphasis on "first measurements"
seems misleading to me.
A fair reading of the sentence is that we are the first experiment
to present particle ratios at 200 GeV.
Here we manage to get people (and likely referee's) upset while NOT
placing emphasis on our strength
of having a large pseudorapidity coverage. Later on, in the
concluding paragraph, we state we have
observed "the highest such ratios yet seen in energetic nuclear
collisions". Actually, Phobos quotes
pi-/pi+=1.025, which is even HIGHER than our value!
I'd suggest a less inflammatory wording such as:
"In the present Letter we present ratios of mesons over antimesons
(pi-/pi+ and K-/K+) and
baryons over antibaryons (pbar/p) for Au+Au collisions at the RHIC
maximum energy of
Sqrt(s_nn)=200 GeV. We explore, for the first time, the dependence
of these ratios over an extended rapidity range (0<y<3) and as
function of transverse momentum pt and
collision centrality (top 20%)."
Last sentence in paragraph:
"The ratios presented here are ratios between the..." can be
changed to "The ratios are for the ..."
3rd paragraph:
The 1st and 2nd sentences both have awkward constructions. I suggest:
"We find that, at midrapidity, the measured antiparticle to
particle ratios are near unity,
with pbar/p = xxx, K-/K+ = yyy, and pi-/pi+ = zzz. These values
...by factors of about 1.8 for kaons
and 10 for protons."
4th paragraph, last sentence:
"The present work indicate an..." should be "The present work
indicates an..."
5th paragraph:
1st sentence: Suggest
"The data were obtained with the BRAHMS detector. The detector has
two independent
small-aperture magnetic spectrometers which can rotate..."
2nd sentence: PRL standards for citing references would have "in
[11]." changed to "in Ref. [11]."
Also note elsewhere in the text, "ref." should be changed to "Ref."
3rd sentence: I suggest changing "...through a dipole magnet and
thereby measureing their momenta." to
"...through a dipole magnet, thus allowing a determination of the
corresponding momenta."
4rth and 5th sentences: I suggest the rewording:
"The assembly is followed by a segmented scintillator
time-of-flight wall (TOFW) for particle
velocity measurement. With this arrangement, pi-K separation is
achieved up to a
momentum of 2 GeV/c and K-p separation up to 4 GeV/c. The Front
Forward Spectrometer (FFS)
consists, in order, of a dipole magnet, at time-projection chamber
(TPC), a second dipole magnet,
a second TPC, a time-of-flight wall (TOF1), and a threshold
gas-Cherenkov detector (C1)."
last sentence: A parallel structure should be used:
"...pi-K separation up to p ~ 20 GeV/c and K-p separation to p ~ 30
GeV/c"
6th paragraph:
I'm confused with what was done here. If, as claimed, you developed
a centrality based on a
total tile multiplicity spectrum extending down to 1 particle, then
the centralities are wrong.
This is discussed in our earlier papers.
In any case, I suggest rewording the 1st sentence:
"The reaction centrality was determined using a plastic scintillator
tile multiplicity array (TMA)
surrounding the intersection region [4,11,12]."
7th paragraph:
I suggest changing "flipped" to "reversed".
8th paragraph:
To avoid the award construction at the end, I suggest rewording:
"In this way the particle ratios that involve data from separate runs
with different vertex distributions are free of systematic errors
related to the vertex position."
12th paragraph:
"errorbars" to "error bars"
The AMPT results should be shown in the figure if they are going to
be mentioned.
14th paragraph:
"Within this framework fig. 4 therefore suggests, that..." should
be punctuated
"Within this framework, Fig. 4 therefore suggests that ..."
Fig. 1 caption:
Shaded histogram missing. (At least, there is no shading in the file
I printed...)
References:
Ian has been displaced as the 1st author of the NIM paper...
Thats all for now...
Regards,
Steve
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon Jul 01 2002 - 00:33:23 EDT