From: Stephen J. Sanders (ssanders@ku.edu)
Date: Mon Jun 30 2003 - 22:49:33 EDT
Dear Claus and Ian, First, Congratulations on pulling together a nice story. Now for the nitpicking... On Figures 2 and 4 I don't understand the "error" band along the y-axes at the abscissa values of 0. The references obviously need more work! (Although it would be amusing to see the referees responses to the "who knows this ???" references...). For the Hijing reference, Hiro used version 1.383 for the d+Au calculations. (The nuclear distribution for a deuteron using a Hulthen wave function was introduced in version 1.382.) Para 5: First sentence. Needs final ", respectively" 3rd sentence. Same problem that I found before. As best I can tell this is a classic run-on sentence, with the final "and normalized to" introduced as a sentence fragment. If you feel this last clause is essential (which I doubt), I would suggest a more parallel construction such as: "The spectra are from measurements at various magnetic fields and have been corrected for the acceptance of the spectrometers and for the tracking efficiencies and have been normalized to the number of events." In sentence beginning "We have compared our ..", remove comma before "recently measured by the STAR..." Para 10: Now having reread the document, I think if you replace "participant zone" with "participant volume" you can tie the general idea back to the introductory discussion and avoid the introduction of an ill-defined concept. Para 11: A hyphen rather than a dash should be used in "between a two-nucleon system". Fig. 1 caption: I think for the parenthetical comment "(appropriately scaled)" you mean "(scaled as indicated)". The use of "appropriately" can be confusing since we also "appropriately scale" this distribution when forming the R_AA distributions. Fig 3. Add : "Statical (error bars) and systematic (grey bands) uncertainties are indicated." Fig 4. "...are denoted by the shaded bands." (plural for bands) One obvious weakness that a referee might focus on is the use of the min-bias dAu results. Since we do not show a comparable min-bias Au+Au spectrum, how can we claim a difference between the dAu and AuAu results? I see two possibilities: 1) Hope that we get blind referees. (Or, at least, referees who are willing to read between the lines, already being familiar with the results of the other experiments.) , or 2) Adding a statement along the lines of what you had in the earlier drafts, but with a more cautious wording. For example, at the end of Para 9, add "This enhancement persists even when more central events are selected." As an aside, I updated brat over the weekend with what I believe is a pretty good, but not final centrality calibration for the dAu runs. Unfortunately, the rcf disk problems are significantly hindering this work... ...steve On Monday, June 30, 2003, at 04:56 PM, Ian Bearden wrote: > Dear Collaborators: > Please find the latest draft attached as .ps and .pdf. > This draft has the final figures, as we see them. > This should be considered a 'final draft' The idea is to submit to PRL > before midnight tomorrow, > so please make your comments quickly. We would appreciate very much > if, where possible, you provide a suggestion as to how to change things > you don't like while keeping in mind that we are very close to the > allowable length for PRL. > Enjoy reading the draft, and please comment as quickly as possible. > Best regards, > Claus and Ian > > <high-pt40.pdf><high-pt40.ps>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Jun 30 2003 - 22:50:47 EDT