Changes between Version 1 and Version 2 of Private/RefereeComments/Language

Timestamp:

Aug 26, 2013, 9:14:20 AM (11 years ago)

Author:

cp3-support

Comment:

--

Private/RefereeComments/Language

@@ -189 +189 @@
 How about ”the mass of the hadronically-decaying top quark” ? ”We will
 reconstruct” is bad too.
+
+Par 2:
+
+L1: ”center” should be ”centre”
+
+L5: I am not sure that the ”DELPHESANALYSIS” package is relevant
+for the clarity of the paper.
+
+PAGE 16
+
+Par 1:
+
+L4: ”b-tagged” is jargon. ”tagged as originating from the hadronization
+of a b quark” would be better.
+
+L5: ”criteria” should be ”criterion”.
+
+L8: While I have no doubt that the signal selection is sensible, I guess
+that the authors want to say ”sensitive”.
+
+L9: Drop ”slight”.
+
+L10: ”efficiencies value” should be ”efficiency”
+
+PAGE 17
+
+Figure 7, 8, ... : ”ref.” should be ”Ref.”
+
+Section 7.2
+
+L1: ”Searching the Higgs particle produced via VBF, and decaying to a
+bbbar pair” is the climax of improper use of English. 
+  * ”Searching” is bad because there is nobody to do the action of searching in the sentence. 
+  * The correct use of ”to search” is ”to search for”.
+  * ”decaying” is bad, because the readers thinks that it applies to the same missing person that does the action of ”searching [for]”, and that later ”decays”. 
+
+I would like to re-iterate the suggestion to ask a native English speaker to read and fix the paper throughout.
+
+PAGE 19
+
+Par 2
+
+L1: ”figure 10” should be ”Fig. 10”
+