Changes between Initial Version and Version 1 of Private/RefereeComments/Language

Timestamp:

Aug 26, 2013, 9:10:41 AM (11 years ago)

Author:

cp3-support

Comment:

--

Private/RefereeComments/Language

@@ +1 @@
+= Language = 
+
+PAGE 1
+
+Abstract
+
+Line 4: ”hadronic calorimeter” ! ”hadron calorimeter”. The authors are
+invited to look for all instances of ”hadronic calorimeter” and modify ac-
+cordingly. [This comment is not repeated for other occurrences.]
+
+Line 5: ”allows to produce collections” is not proper english. Replace
+either by ”allows the easy production of collections” or ”allows collections
+to be easily produced”. The authors are invited to look for all instances of
+the verb ”to allow” in the text, as it most often incorrectly used throughout.
+[This comment is not going to be repeated for the other sections.]
+
+Line 5: The word ”collections” appears out of context here, and carries
+no meaning to the casual reader.
+
+PAGE 2
+
+Introduction
+
+Second paragraph:
+
+L3: ”parametrisation” has the wrong spelling. How about using ”param-
+eterization”, which is the proper word. The authors are invited to look for
+all instances of ”parametris...” in the text, as this comment is not going to
+be repeated for the other sections.
+
+Third paragraph:
+
+L1: A sentence must not start with an acronym (here ”DELPHES”). The
+authors are invited to look for all instances of DELPHES, and rephrase when
+at a start of a sentence.
+
+L1: No hyphen between ”data” and ”format”. Actually, ”data-format”
+can be dropped altogether without losing information.
+
+L4: ”final observables” of photons and leptons is jargon, and carries lit-
+tle meaning to the casual reader. The authors probably mean ”measured
+energy” ?
+
+L5: ”the relevant sub-detectors” is also very much unclear. How about
+simply ”the detector resolution”
+
+L6: ”High-level reconstructed quantities such as” carries little meaning to
+the casual reader. The sentence would read better without it.
+
+L7: Why are ”calorimeter deposits” qualified as ”simple” ? Suggest to
+drop it. Why is the ”particle-flow algorithm” qualified as ”so-called” ? Sug-
+gest to drop it.
+
+Fourth paragraph:
+
+L4: ”b” and all particle names ought to be written in roman style. (True
+for the whole paper.) No hyphen between ”tau” and ”tagging”.
+
+Fifth paragraph:
+
+L2: ”will be described/given” ! ”is described/given in Sections xxx” (two
+occurrences). The authors are invited to look for all instances of ”will”, and
+replace it by the present tense in most cases.
+
+Section 2
+
+L3: I am not sure of ”symmetric along the beam axis”, especially the word
+”along”. How about ”with a cylindrical symmetry around the beam axis” ?
+
+Section 2.1
+
+L2: What is the meaning of ”The magnetic field is applied” ? Applied to
+what ? Maybe the authors want to say ”is assumed to be localized” ?
+
+PAGE 3
+
+L2: The magnetic field is not ”solenoidal”, it is ”axial” (because it is pro-
+duced by a solenoid).
+
+Par 2:
+L1: What is the meaning of ”(good)” ? Maybe the authors want to say
+”in general high” ? ”Seen” ! ”reconstructed”
+
+L2: ”which provide a direct measurement of their momentum”: I am not
+sure of what ”provide(s)” this measurement in this sentence. How about
+starting a new sentence indicated that the measured curvature to the recon-
+structed trajectory and the magnetic field intensity allow the momentum to
+be measured.
+
+L3: ”The angular resolution is assumed excellent” ! ”A perfect angular
+resolution is assumed”
+
+Section 2.2
+
+Par 1:
+
+L3: ”strongly interacting particles” ! ”long-lived charged and neutral
+hadrons”
+
+Par 2:
+
+L5: ”calorimeter object” is an undefined concept here. How about ”calorime-
+ter energy deposit (later called hit)” ? ”center” should be ”centre” (unless the au-
+thors decide to write in american english).
+
+PAGE 4
+
+Section 2.3
+
+Par 1:
+
+L3: ”several collaborations” : Ref. [3] points to the CMS Collaboration.
+What are the other(s) ?
+
+L3: ”intrinsically” has little meaning here. Suggest to drop.
+
+Par 2:
+
+L1: ”higher” should be ”better”
+
+PAGE 5
+
+Section 2.3
+
+Last paragraph, L1 : ”consists in” should be ”consists of”
+
+PAGE 6
+
+Section 3.1.3
+
+L1: Why is ”isolated” in italics ? ”surrounding” should be ”surroundings”, or better, ”vicinity”
+
+L2: Starting a sentence with ”Requiring” (or any verb in ”ing”) is bad
+English, as there is nobody in the sentence to do the action of ”requiring”.
+The authors are inviting to look for all instances of the ”... ing” form, and
+check if there is somebody or something in the sentence to do the action of
+”...ing” (and otherwise fix the sentence).
+
+PAGE 7
+
+Section 3.2.2
+
+Title : no hyphen between ”tau” and ”jets”
+
+L1: ”Identifying” is bad. ”tau-lepton” should be ”tau”. ”flavor” should be ”flavour”.
+
+L2: No hyphen between ”c” and ”quarks”. ”Crucial” should be ”important”. ”experiment” should be ”experiments”
+
+PAGE 8
+
+Section 3.2.2
+
+Par 2:
+
+L3: It is not clear what ”parton” refers to in the Delta R formula. Maybe
+the authors want to replace it by ”b, tau” ?
+
+L6: ”is wrongly” should be ”be wrongly” (subjunctive is in order here).
+
+Section 3.3
+
+L(N-1) : ”particle-flow candidates” is an undefined concept at this level.
+
+PAGE 10
+
+
+Par 2:
+
+L1: ”residual” should be ”neutral”
+
+L3: ”automatically” : it is not clear what the meaning of ”automatically”.
+
+PAGE 15
+
+Section 7.1
+
+Par 1:
+
+L1 : ”High Energy” should be ”high energy”; What is the meaning of ”most
+common” ? How about ”most copious” ?
+
+L4: ”two jets originating from one b quark” is possible, but is probably
+not what the authors want to say.
+
+L6: ”the hadronic top-mass” 
+ * is jargon, 
+ * has one hyphen too many.
+
+How about ”the mass of the hadronically-decaying top quark” ? ”We will
+reconstruct” is bad too.