Hi,

    I've read the NIM draft. There's an impressive amount of work in
    there! Thanks a lot for taking the time to work on that. I don't
    have major comments, you can find them below. In my comments I put
    the modifications between "_" character. I'd like to be considered
    an author.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
General comments:
-----------------

- The spelling of some words like pseudorapidity, photomultipliers,
  gamma-jet (versus gamma+jet) are not consistent all over the paper.

Specific comments: ------------------

p.5/line 12: ... 1 GeV_/c2_ uncertainty on the top quark mass.

p.5/l.18: "C_rel is an angular calibration of jets to ensure...":
Formulated this way it sounds like a correction on the jet angle.

5/25: Define QCD

5/28: "Note __ that these corrections..."

5/34: "tuning" is mispelled

6/8: "... either on calorimeter tower or on final state particles.":
At this point of the paper, I don't think "final state particles" will
be clear to the reader. I'd either put something like (defined in
Section xx), or explained a bit more.

6/16: "... to individual particles as well as the particle
multiplicity it will also model correctly the response of a jet": Not
quite true I think since the momentum spectrum of particles need to be
well modeled also.

8/28: You mention the CES/PES/CPR are used for the photon
identification and background determination. You might want to say
there used for electron ID also that are used in the paper at least in
Z->ee.

9/6: "... sampling for electromagnetic measurement and
steel-scintillator sampling for hadronic.": Need to rephrase, not
clear what "hadronic" is at the end of the sentence.

10/9: "The forward plug calorimeter ... but use wavelength shifting
fiber readout.": This is mentioned in opposition to the central
calorimeter, but the readout for the central was not mentioned, so
this does not add information. Either remove or explain for the
central.

10/17: Mentioning 132 ns as the Tevatron bunch spacing might confusing
to readers. Maybe can rephrase not to suggest this is the actual bunch
spacing employed.

Sec. 2.2: you compare Z->ee mass spectrum for raw and corrected
electrons, mention raw is 0.8 GeV wider, but as I was reading it I
didn't understand the point of the comparison with regard to the jet
energy scale? Maybe you can explain more what conclusions we draw from
this exercise?

10/33: "... 50 GeV charged pions in a test beam _(described in more
details in Sec. 4)_.":

11/11-13: Mention explicitely that the E/p variable is used to monitor the time dependence.

11/14-15: "... the energy scale is monitored by both a laser system,
using muons from J/psi->mumu decays and Minimum bias data...": Remove
both since there are three items mentioned?

11/17: "... 3% per year and _are_ corrected accordingly."

12/7: "The results of these calibration_s_..."

12/14: Rephrase: "The uncertainty on the stability is about 0.3% and
1.5% for the CEM and CHA, respectively."

14/12: "pointing from the origin _of the CDF coordinate system_ to the
center of the compartment": Also, not quite true since the two PMTs
returns a weighted phi coordinate in the central, thus phi doesn not
equal to the center of towers in gereral.

14/24: It is mentioned the jet algorithm stops when the cluster is
stable. Need to define stability: when the geometrical center of the
tower correspond to the cluster centroid.

14/27: "The final jet energy and _momentum coordinates_ are..."

Eqn. 9: need to replace one px by py.

16/19: give a reference for XFT?

Sec. 4: The text for describing the W/Z electrons and muons samples
are almost the same: can combine them.

17/5: The Z mass cut is really different for electrons and muons as
described here?

17/14: "... parton distribution functions are _employed_": Because the
word "used" appears three times in three sentences.

17/29: It is said in the section that Pythia and Herwig are used to
generate all samples, but here it is mentioned BGEN is used?

18/9: "...as the data. _Particles..."

19/21: "parametrizations" mispelled

20/14: I think x, y and E_inc are undefined in Eqn. 15? E_inc can be
defined naturally at line 23.

21/32: You mention neutral hadrons here which sounds like pi0's are
included. Might want to add "stable" in there to clarify.

22/25: "... within Delta R = ...": But the size of Delta R is not given.

23/6: Cannot start a sentence by a number. (40-25%...)

31/4: "Figure 14 shows the difference _in_ E/p ..."

31/13: "... to be within 10 GeV _of_ the Z..."

35/6: "The different response_s_ of the ... also cause__ ..."

35/7-9: The description there sounds like the relative correction acts
fully like an out-of-cone corrections. Maybe be better to state it
corrects for any dependence in the ooc energy over eta.

35/20: "... and _probe_ jet, ..."

35/24-25: "... we reduce the sensitivity of our measurement to
non-Gaussian tails.": I personally don't understand why is that, maybe
it deserves an additional sentence of explanation?

35/30: I don't think Delta phi(jet,jet) is used anywhere, so no need
to introduce it.

36/4-5: "Further cuts are placed on ... to be about 5 GeV higher than
the trigger threshold.": Not very clear, further cuts suggest there
are more than one cut and the "about 5 GeV" is imprecise. Can you be
more precise?

36/15: "... both _in_ the data and the simulation."

36/31-32: "... and the uncertainties on the non-linear response that
cause a pt(jet)-dependence and...": It was not clear to me why this
introduced pt-dependence is a problem since the corrections are
themselves pt-dependent and thus should correct for that? Can you
rephrase?

39/16: At the end of this paragraph, it seems to me it would be
appropriate that the analysis are extracting their own
process-specific corrections. You could cite the top mass and other
measurements. It would make it clear for the reader that what is
described here is not the end of the story.

39-40: Eqns. 23-30 need to have punctuations, either a comma or period
at the end.

Eqn. 28: n(pt^calo, pt^particle) is undefined I think.

40/20-30: In the paragraph, it is mentioned jet cone sizes of 0.4,
0.7, etc. These are cone radii, not sizes.

43/12: "... and given by _Eqns. 32-33_ for all other particles."

Sec. 8: I think there needs to be a few words describing the
vertex-finding algorithm. I don't think it is currently stated that
vertices are reconstructed using tracks, only based on the z
coordinates, etc.

48/5: "... which depends _linearly_ in the instantaneous luminosity.":
I don't think the linear dependence is explicitely stated otherwise.

48/19-20: Figure 24 shows the instantaneous luminosity, not the number
of vertices (as mentioned in the text).

48/34: Cannot start a sentence with a symbol (E_T^R is ...)

49/1-5: I think it's worth mentioning the numbers in Table 3 scale
with the cone area as expected.

51/15: "We therefore _add the uncertainty arising from the vertex
finder efficiency and fake rate to_ assign a total systematic of
15%..."

52/7-8: Maybe mention also a source of ooc energy are low-pt charged
particles bending out of the jet cone?

Figure 27: I assume something's wrong with this plot: the description
in the text doesn't match the actual plot.

57/18: "Isolated _photons_ are selected..."

Figure 30: There seem to be bins missing between eta of about 2.7 and 3.2?

59/1: "Also __ given are the..."

61/3: The "-" between 19-20 and 2-1 are not consistent.

61/21: The advantage of Z+jet over gamma+jet (less bkgd) is
mentioned. I'd mention also this is at the price of smaller
statistics.

62/11: "... by about 10% for 25 < pt < 55 GeV/c _for |eta| > 0.6_ and
agree well for ..."

Caption fig. 33: "... and for pt > 105 GeV/c _(right)_."

Figure 34: mention explicitely in caption these plots are for
particles jet. Also, I don't think pt^hat is defined?

65/3: "For _data_ and Pythia..."

66/10: "... after applying __ all the jet ..."

66/9-12: There is an apparent pt-dependence in Fig. 37, but it is not
discussed in the text? Should say at least it is consistent with
systematic uncertainties.

Sec. 10.2: I think it'd be good to mention the W->jj cross-check in
ttbar events that is in very good agreement with the nominal JES. I
think it's a good evidence that the JES described in the paper is
working, that is the goal of the section. You can cite the PRD to be
submitted.

66/28: It is mentioned the W and Z mass are well reconstructed in
Pythia and Herwig MC, but this is not discussed anywhere? I'd just
remove that sentence.

that's it, great job!

best, JF