From marek@d0mino.fnal.gov Mon Jun 18 14:21:06 2001 Return-Path: Received: from d0mino.fnal.gov (d0mino.fnal.gov [131.225.224.45]) by phyast.nhn.ou.edu (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f5IJL5015158 for ; Mon, 18 Jun 2001 14:21:05 -0500 Received: from localhost (marek@localhost) by d0mino.fnal.gov (SGI-8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id OAA87751; Mon, 18 Jun 2001 14:21:06 -0500 (CDT) Message-Id: <200106181921.OAA87751@d0mino.fnal.gov> X-Authentication-Warning: d0mino.fnal.gov: marek@localhost didn't use HELO protocol X-Mailer: exmh version 2.0.2 2/24/98 To: strauss@mail.nhn.ou.edu cc: Marek Zielinski Subject: 630 paper after style review Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2001 14:21:06 CDT From: Marek Zielinski Content-Length: 1303 Status: RO Mike, I looked at the new version you produced (two-column). I tend to agree with your responses to the style suggestions (where not verbatim), but I noticed a few issues remaining: - 3rd par "in the simple.." is short, and not very much standing on its own. Would it be better to append it to preceding par? - p5 last sentence "The detector response ... a detailed {GEANT} simulation..." otherwise is not very specific. (added in {}) - p5, last par "the results are compared... [11,12]" -- which theory is in the Figs/tables?? (TELL ME INDEEPENDENT OF THE PAPER, I'd like to know for my talk...) Should we specify, or say that calculations are practically identical? - Table I, header of 3rd col, wrong position of \sigma (is subscript). - p6. col 2 , 1st par, last sentence: "...os a function {of} x_T"? don't we need {of}? - next par, last sentence: still misspell "descrepancy" - ref 2, still errors: should be "Alitti", "Phys. Lett." (not Phys Rev) - ref 6, "... 2000 (to be published...)." could be better - ref 7, "1997 (unpublished)." (no comma) could be better - ref 8, you did not change the style of ref to NIM here, but did in ref [13] I'd prefer to link the fixed versions for collaboration review, unless you really cannot do it by Thursday. Let me know about theory. Marek ------------------------------------------------------------------------ From strauss@phyast.nhn.ou.edu Mon Jun 18 14:49:24 2001 Return-Path: Received: from particle.nhn.ou.edu (particle.nhn.ou.edu [129.15.30.205]) by phyast.nhn.ou.edu (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f5IJnM024482; Mon, 18 Jun 2001 14:49:22 -0500 Received: by particle.nhn.ou.edu (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f5IJnKl22700; Mon, 18 Jun 2001 14:49:20 -0500 (CDT) Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2001 14:49:20 -0500 (CDT) From: Mike Strauss Message-Id: <200106181949.f5IJnKl22700@particle.nhn.ou.edu> To: marek@d0mino.fnal.gov Subject: Re: 630 paper after style review Cc: strauss@mail.nhn.ou.edu Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-MD5: 3o/mh0nLtiOBLqkWdEOglA== Content-Length: 1967 Status: RO Marek, I have made the changes below. Please check that they look okay, especially my change to ref 7. I will let you know when I have postscript versions with these corrections. -Mike > Mike, > I looked at the new version you produced (two-column). > I tend to agree with your responses to the style suggestions (where not > verbatim), but I noticed a few issues remaining: > - 3rd par "in the simple.." is short, and not very much standing on its > own. Would it be better to append it to preceding par? I'm not sure it flows well in the previous paragraph so I am leaving it as is. > - p5 last sentence "The detector response ... a detailed {GEANT} simulation..." > otherwise is not very specific. (added in {}) GEANT added > - p5, last par "the results are compared... [11,12]" -- which theory is > in the Figs/tables?? (TELL ME INDEEPENDENT OF THE PAPER, I'd like to > know for my talk...) Should we specify, or say that calculations are > practically identical? The theory is CTEQ5M. The results from Owens and Vogelsang are basically indistinguishable. The results plotted are from Vogelsang. The paper does say CTEQ5M. > - Table I, header of 3rd col, wrong position of \sigma (is subscript). Fixed > - p6. col 2 , 1st par, last sentence: "...os a function {of} x_T"? > don't we need {of}? I added "of" > - next par, last sentence: still misspell "descrepancy" Now it's discrepency. > - ref 2, still errors: should be "Alitti", "Phys. Lett." (not Phys Rev) Changed > - ref 6, "... 2000 (to be published...)." could be better Changed to 2000 (to be published...) > - ref 7, "1997 (unpublished)." (no comma) could be better Changed to (1997) (unpublished). > - ref 8, you did not change the style of ref to NIM here, but did in ref [13] I changed it here, now. > I'd prefer to link the fixed versions for collaboration review, unless > you really cannot do it by Thursday. Let me know about theory. > Marek > > -Mike