General:

- Unify British (used at line 867 e.g.) vs American (used at line 798 e.g.) English, favouring the Brit, since we are EU funded.

- Some statement lacks of references, in particular in 3.1

- Unify the use of standard units or not. I have the feeling that we won't use natural units, so times in fm/c, momentum in GeV /c, mass in GeV /c^2, temperatures in MeV /kB, etc.

- It's bizarre to sometime have data to compare on the plot, and sometime not.

3.0 and 1...

-Footnote : second p-A should be in roman font, if I understand the logic.

We use the defined command \newcommand{\pA}{{p--A}\xspace}

-720. the+ir+ production... the+ir+ pp production

-** 721. Ref for Glauber (the 4 experiment RHIC paper of Steinberg et al being the best, imho)

-723. of +centrality-integrated+ p-A

-727. I assume open and hidden are defined before

Let say in General introduction

-729. (of which various theoretical...) ?

-** 731. proton -> nucleon (unless you want to consider the trivial isospin effect as part of CNM, but then you need to add it in section 3.2)

-736. global fit analyses (plural, there are various incarnation)

-738. which -> whose ?

-742. Lack of references (to DGLAP, JIMWLK, CGC...) and the (see section 3.2.3) does not refer to JIMWLK only, so maybe (see section 3.2.3 for details and references)?

In this introduction of the different CNM effects, we don't want to enter in details, this is why we put no references.

-744. the Cronin

-** 747. heavy quarkonia, and you should mention why it affects only them, adding "early-produced" would do it

-752. again lacking of references

Same remark than above (742)

-** Eq. 13 is wrong (talked to Francois about it), the current cross section would be of p+p/A, not of p+Pb, some sum over nucleons is missing

-759. Tempted to add "hypothetical" before "2->1"

Why?

-767. CNM effects do not involve probes -> "Different probes and observable are sensitive to various..."

-767-8. I don't like this sentence. The "must be" should be soften, "kinematical configuration" does not mean much (we care about root(s) more than about a little 0.465 boost for instance).

-778. ox -> of

3.2 ...

Table 6: would put the energies in TeV (because 5.023 is far too precise, even the 0.02 that everybody use being not that well defined, depending if one uses the neutron mass, for instance).

Table 6: eta_e -> y (otherwise you have to change elsewhere)

789. Talked to François about it, this sentence is super cryptic. At minima, one should replace "leading" by "related"

I wouldn't say 'cryptic' but rather that it assumes some knowledge smile Following a remark by Andrea, I added a comment.

** In 3.2.2. I think it is not really acceptable to say NOTHING about open charm. If not available, mention it, say why, encourage people to work, etc.

I agree, I guess this is more a question to Ramona. I added a comment to her.

814. Is the phi notation used elsewhere in the review?

I checked that we used \Qcal defined in SaporeGravis.tex so I guess it's fine (to be checked, maybe!)

** 845. I find this sentence a bit abrupt, and maybe calling for a conclusive sentence.

I added this as a comment to Ramona.

** Figure 25: where is data?

The goal here is to provide the theoretical content of the models and a few calculations. The comparison to data is made afterwards.

** 873. What is JIN doing here and not in table 8 ? Was it really successful in catching everything ? (psi' centrality dependence for instance...) I think we should be more specific here.

Added the question to Elena, Andry and Jean-Philippe.

To Cynthia and Philippe: shall we simply write JIN in the plots (… to be redone then ;( ) and in Table 8?

** 876. "can be compared" ? -> are or will be compared on Fig. 36. But why not comparing on Fig. 26 already?

See comment above, in this section we refrain from doing a systematic data-theory comparison.

** 931. Realy parameter free ? Not even a little something fit on lower energy data ?

We can ask Kopeliovich but this is probably useless.

Figure 28. There is data at 2.76 TeV, so why showing a 5.5 TeV and not reality?

We asked him to send us 5 TeV (which is in any case not reality as far as his model is concerned!).

** Table 8 is a very good idea, but I'm not sure I caught the use I can make of it. Will all the predictions shown later be displayed by the acronym? (I don't think so). Should there be some references for each acronym?

Yes predictions will be displayed with the acronym. References need to be added.

Edit | Attach | Watch | Print version | History: r5 < r4 < r3 < r2 < r1 | Backlinks | Raw View | WYSIWYG | More topic actions
Topic revision: r5 - 2015-04-20 - FrancoisArleo
 
    • Cern Search Icon Cern Search
    • TWiki Search Icon TWiki Search
    • Google Search Icon Google Search

    ReteQuarkonii All webs login

This site is powered by the TWiki collaboration platform Powered by PerlCopyright &© 2008-2019 by the contributing authors. All material on this collaboration platform is the property of the contributing authors.
Ideas, requests, problems regarding TWiki? Send feedback