Dear Florencia et al.,

the draft is a really nice survey over this topic. The following are
mostly suggestions/comments just on various details up to Section 5. I
will send you the rest later this evening.

Cheers - Pedro

***************************************************************************

General comments:  

- The draft needs here and there some improvement in language style, and
it would be useful to have an English native for help.  You also switch
sometimes between America and British English, but use one of them
uniformly. (For example "parametrisation" and "parametrization",
"hadronisation" and "hadronization". In words like these, "z" is American,
"s" is British).

- In Chapter 5 there is a confusion about which simulation parameters were
really tuned to CDF data. Details see below.

- I know there is limited time, but it would be nice to have
some of the plots look more professional (see below).


p1: Abstract:

2nd/3rd sentence sound a little awkwardly, perhaps better:  "Jets are
measured as localized clusters in the calorimeter which requires a
detailed understanding of the calibration procedure and the simulation of
the calorimeter. We present a detailed comparison between measured and
jets from simulation programs based on various underlying physics
processes."

It would be also useful to briefly mention in the abstract which the class
of calorimeter CDF belongs to (sampling, with EM and HAD compartment).
   
p5 l2-3:  
 Skip "often", don't use "rely" twice.

p5 l11:  
 Instead "Or, a 1% uncertainty..." better: "Typically, a 1% 
 uncertainty" or "As another example, a 1% uncertainty..."

p5 l22-25:  
Better:  "C_Abs is the correction of the calorimeter response to the 
 momentum of the *particle jet*, P^particle_jet (see Section 3), which 
 corresponds to the sum of the momenta of the underlying hadrons, leptons 
 and  photons within the jet cone. Particle jets can be compared 
 directly to data ..." 

 (Use quotation marks just once, at the beginning. The suggested short 
 explanation of the term "particle jet" might be useful because you refer
 to it later)

p5 l34: typo, should be "tuning".

p6 l8: typo, "Jets are...".

p6 l9:  
 You need to explain how you define the numerical cone size values, or
better skip the numbers because you anyway refer to a later Section.

p6 l15-17: 
 If the response is non linear with the track multiplicity of a jet, then
the statement about calorimeter response is not true. You can mention that 
studies exist with justify to tune the simulation to the single particle 
response.

p6 l20: 
 I am not sure if the term "in-situ" is appropriate, and the external
reader might not understand what you mean. You don't scale the jet energy
event-by-event. You use special events for calculating an average
correction. Perhaps better: "Here, measurements based on both test beam
data and CDF data taken during Run-I and Run-II are used."

p6 l29: 
 Don't use quotation marks for "particle jet" again. You have explained
this term already above.

p6 l30, l32 
p7, l3, l7, and many more:
 You repeatedly start sentences with "This...", which sounds not 
good and stiffly. Just replace by "The..", which is clear enough in the 
context.

p7 l7: 
 Better: "The "Out-of-Cone" energy, C_OOC, is measured ... and described
in Section 10.

p7 l16: 
 I am not sure if the term "calibration procedure" is a good term. Say 
"measurement procedure" or "correction procedure"

p8 l2-3: 
 "We use...about the beam pipe" better "In the following we use a 
cyclindrical coordinate system with the origin at the center of the 
detector where the z axis points along the beam pipe ..."
(You have anyway to explain z for later reference.)

p8 l11:
 Skip "beryllium" - it is not relevant for the paper.

p8 l13: 
 Here you write "pseudo rapidity", previously you wrote "pseudo-rapidity"  
and later "pseudorapidity". Use one version throughout the draft.

p8 l26, l36: 
 Write "central pre-radiator" or "central electromagnetic" in capitals, as
you did with the other detector parts, or write consistently in lower
case. Lower case might be more suitable.

p9 l6: 
 Better: "for THE electromagnetic and steel-scintilator for THE hadronic
measurement"

p9 Fig 1: Typo, should be "Elevation view..."

p9/10 l1: 
 Better:  "The material in the CEM has a depth of 18 radiation lengths."

p10 l2:
 Since you discuss the calorimeter compartments in detail it would be
consequent to mention which effects contribute to the two terms in the
resolution formula, or at least briefly explain the two terms.

p10 l8: 
 Typo, should be "...and are based on..."

p10 l15: 
 Typo, should be  "Each calorimeter tower..."

p10 l28: 
 I recommend not to use italics (raw, electron) generally throughout the 
draft.

p10 l33-34:
 "The energy ... is defined as 50 GeV" doesn't make sense. What do you 
mean?

p10 l37-38:
 "The test beam ... has been maintained since the test beam data..."
That is a really confusing sentence which has to be rewritten completely.

p11 l1:
 "...maintenance of the energy scale..." sounds again very unclear for me. 
Do you mean "monitoring of the time dependence of the energy scale"?

p11 Fig2: 
 Skip the red borders of the plot (here and generally). If you refer to
mass values, the units are GeV/c2 which should be kept consistently
throughout the draft. For a NIM publication the label text "c2" the 
exponent should appear more professionally as superscript.

p11 l7:
 "aging" ... avoid italics

p12 l1: 
 Omit the comma.

p12 l9:
 Better: "...as a function of THE run number. The range of run numbers.."
 
p13 Fig. 4:
 Should be "The CMUP..."
 Should be "The CMX muons ... probe...

p14 l3
 Should be "...different types of clustering algorithms."

p14,l3-4:
 Better: "For this study, jets are clustered using a cone algorithm with a 
fixed cone size in which..."

p14 l5:
 Formula contains a typo, should be "...(phi^tower-eta^tower)...".

p14 Sect 3.1:
 Once you describe the cone algorithm: how does the clustering start? is 
 there seed tower or so?

p14 l10-11:
 The term "massless four vector" is slang not allowed in a paper, better:  
"...by assigning a four-vector to the tower object with zero mass 
and ...".

p14 l12:
 "Center of the compartment" better "tower center". Compartment means 
something like CEM or PHA.

p14 l23:
 The term "This procedure is repeated..." is somehow misleading. It refers
to something between line 8 and 22 but you actually don't repeat the
details concerning the initial seed tower (which you don't explain in the
text), right? My understanding is: You treat the tower to which the
initial tentative cone axis points as new seed tower for the algorithm and
look wether you get the same cone, and repeat this iteratively until the
tower<->cluster assignment is stable. Is that what you mean? The confusion
arises because the reader doesn't really know the start of the 
"procedure". That should be really explained unambiguously.

p15 footnote:
 To explain stable particles, don't refer to the status code but physical
properties. Better: "In Pythia and Herwig, particles with a life time
greater than 10^-8 seconds are treated as stable particles". (Have to 
check the value.)

p14/15 equations: 
 Replace towers by e.g. N_tow and explain N_tow in line 22.

p15 l16:
 "equations 2-8" -> "Eqn. (2)-(8)"
and analogously in the whole draft when refering to equations.

p16 items:
 Don't capitalize too much, write e.g. "Test beam data" intead of "Test 
Beam Data". But start with upper case in the explanation following!

p16 l6-10:
  "The CEM.. test beam..." is not good English, better: 
"Test beam data for the CEM, CHA and WHA were taken in 1985 and 1988 
within a momentum range 5 - 180 GeV/c for electrons and 7-220 GeV/c for 
charged pions." 

...and similarly in the next two sentences. This is more compact and helps
you to avoid repeating "test beam" five times in that short paragraph.

p16 l18:
  Paranthesis missing.

p16 l19:
  XFT is the extremely fast tracker, not the track trigger. Why anyway od 
you want to introduce that abbrevation here?

p16 l23-26:
 I am not sure if the discussion of the prescale is relevant for the paper
since it does not have any impact on the topology of the events selected.  
Perhaps skip this part?

p17 l12
 Here you explain again the abbrevation MC.

p17 l20-23
 I generated single-particle data up to 24 GeV/c. This covers also Daves
range (as far as I know). Don't mention the lower limit if you refer
implicitely to Daves and to my studies in the draft (since we have
slightly different lower p limits - but that is not crucial)

p17 l34: 
 Omit the comma.

p17 l36:
 Not only the implementations but also the modeling is different. The
sentence sound a bit awkwardly, better: 

"Note that Pythia and Herwig use different models, which is helpful to
study and understand uncertainties associated with these effects."

p18 l2:
 A reference to the LEP tuning would be useful.

p18 l3:
 Better: "For modeling the underlying event we use a tuning 
optimized to describe CDF data from Run-I, which we refer to as 
'Pythia Tune A'"

p18 l9:
 "And, particle..." -> "Particle..."

p17-18:
 You write Pythia and Herwig in both typewriter style and roman font. 
Please keep style uniformly. See also "Jimmy", "BGEN"


p19 Sec 5 general comment:

Although you introduce in detail the longitudinal and lateral shower
parametrization it is no clear which of these many parameters were really
optimized to describe CDF data, and in which momentum range. E.g., the
lateral profile were tuned to minbias tracks up to 2.5 GeV/c, with the
tune results used up to 5 GeV/c. and not all of the parameters were 
optimized but only a few of them related to Eqn. 18.

 
p19 l1:
 "parametrised" -> "parametrized" (if you want to use American English)

p19 l5:
 Again I doubt that if "in situ" is the appropriate word. Skip it?

p19 l5:
 You speak vaguely  about "dedicated trigger although you described it in 
some detail on page 16, together with the other data samples. 
Better: "The response of charged hadrons is measured using both single 
isolated tracks and test beam data." 

And you need to explain "isolated". 

p19 l5:
 Should be "test beam data."

p19 l8:
 "parametrised simulation" better: "shower parametrization"

p19 l14:
 Skip "(CDFSIM)".

p19 l15:
 Typo: "and to apply", should be "and applies" or better "and simulates 
secondary physical processes such as ..."

p19 l19:
 "Gflash generates particle showers" implies detailed  tracking of 
showering particles. It would be better to say "Gflash generates particle 
shower shapes within the calorimeter  and ..."

p19 l20,21:
 Typos: Should be "parametrizations"

p19 l21:
 many repititions of "and are". Just say: "The parametrizations of 
electromagnetic and hadronic showers are described in detail in [29] and 
briefly outlined ..."

p20 l1:
 Typo: should be "fractions"

p20 l10:
 Skip comma.

p20 l15:
  "Equation 14" -> "Eqn. (14)"

p20 l19,21
  Typo: "pi0"

p20, Sect. 5.1.2
 You miss to mention how fdp (fraction of deposited energy)  is
parametrized. The optimization of fdp with CDF data was one particular
contribution to improve the simulation, right? (magenta curve)

p21 l6:
  Better: "R0 is an approximate log-normal distribution, with a mean 
...and variance ..."

p21 l10:
 Brackets missing in Eqn. 18, should be: "... R1+(R2-R3 log E)z..."

p21 Sec 5.1.4.
 This whole Section is too sloppy. It should be described which parameters
were tuned (see above). Mention the most important which helped reducing
the uncertainties of the jet corrections. In particular the optimization
of fdp lead to an improvement of the relative corrections.

p21 l19,l20:
 Both sentence start with "As...", should be improved.

p22 l13:
 Tracks are extrapolated to CES or PES, respectively, not to the surfaces 
of CEM.

p22 l34:
 This statement is not true. If I remember well, it happens very often
that single FakeEv tracks generate dozens of secondary tracks/pi0/photons
due to the simulation of secondary processes during the tracking through
detector material (bremssstrahlung, e+e- conversion, I guess also nuclear
reactions) in the passive material before reaching the calorimeter. This 
effect becomes more drastical in the plug region.

p23 l23:
 The reader might ask why? You should write here that the 20 GeV/c limit
is just because of limited data statistics. In lines 12-13 you repeat the
statement again, mentioning the limited data statistics. You should avoid
repitition

p23 l4:
 Which data do you mean?

p23 l5-6:
 "Background causes a significant effect..." 
Better: The background contributes significantly for p<3 GeV..."

p23 l6:
 "...40-25%..." is that a typo?

p23 l9:
 "...is rather constant versus p"
Better: "...is almost independent on p"

p23 l10-11:
 This statement is stronger than what you can conclude from Fig. 6 which
shows just the MEAN of CEM and HAD energies. And the statement is 
wrong because other aspects of the data are not well simulated by 
simulation. So say something like "mean of CEM and CHA energies" or so.

p23 l12-16:
 Here you partially repeat yourself. I suggest to keep this part and to 
skip l1-2.

p24 Fig 6:
 "Fractional energy observed in THE central..."
 "The top row shows..."
Skip the last sentence in the caption since it is not true (see comment 
above)

p24 l1,3:
 Replace colon by point and proceed in upper case.

p24 footnote:
 Typo, should be "...for non-interacting..."

p25 l1,6.
 Again, I have difficulties with the word "in situ". Why don't you just
say "Run-I data" or CDF data?

p26 Fig 8:
 You can merge the two plots into one plot w/o problems.
 "Minimum Bias" -> "Minimum bias"
 Last sentence is too long and has to be rewritten.

p27 l4,5:
 Better: "...for the <E/p> tuning, a 2x2 group of 4 adjacent towers are 
treated as one target tower."

p27 l8,13:
 Start sentences in capital.

p27 l10:
 "In addition, in the..."

p27 l14,19:
 "Minimum bias"

p27 l6-15:
 In the discussion of the various difficulties in the plug you forgot to
mention that the E/p analysis performed so far mostly relies on SISA
tracks that have much worse momentum resolution. That is actually the 
biggest problem in particular in the high momentyum region, not the 
background which we actually have under control.

p27 l24:
 Typo, should be "made"

p28, Fig 9:
 "Fractional energy" -> "<E/p>"
 All labels are wrong, they refer to the central.

p28, l3:
 "The shape, i.e. the fact..."
Better: "The momentum dependence of <E/p> arises from ..."

p29 Fig.10:
 As in Figure 8 you can easily merge the two plots into one.

p21-29:
 You might want to mention that improvements in the E/p measurement are in
progress for both plug and central part up to track momenta of 20GeV/c,
not only for <E/p> but also for other aspects of the simulation (e.g.
lateral profile, crack response.) This is not only a question of
increasing data statistics (as you mention in p30 l5) but also improvement
in analysis methods (improvement of track resolution in the plug region, 
adding PES isolation, etc)

p30 Fig.11:
 "...and Monte Carlo samples (open circles and triangles)"
Y axis label should be <E/p>.

p30 l2:
 You have to describe how you derive the uncertainties from Fig. 12.

p30 l6-8:
 The last two sentence are redundant. Just skip "Here, the...is limited".

p30 l10-14:
 This sentence is difficult to understand.
 Better: "In addition, there is a 1.5% uncertainty due to the shorter 
inegration time ... compared to the test beam measurements (2.5 mus) and 
due to limitations in monitoring the test beam calibration ..."

p30 l14:
 You write "Thus we take..." but you didn't explain how you derive the 
3.5% value.

p30 l19:
p31 l1:
 Fig. 13 shows also the momentum range 12-16GeV/c. Furthermore you have to
mention that for these plots you restrict on the inner 90% strip in eta
around the tower center. The reader might ask why you show the <E/p> vs 
phi and not vs eta? Is the uncertainty that you point out in p31 
l1 related to the instrumentation along phi? If so, that information 
deserves to be mentioned in the discssion.

p31, Fig.12:
 "minimum bias", "Single-track'
 Y axis label: Better "<E/p>(data)-<E/p>(MC)"

p31, Fig.l13:
 "10 GeV/c2"

p32 l6:
 "For EM particles it is 1.7%" Better: "The systematic uncertainty on the
EM compartment of electromagnetically showering particles is 1.7% for the
whole momentun range studied."

p33,34 Fig.s 14-16:
 Again: "<E/p>(data) - <E/p>(MC)"
 Legends.

p34 Table 1:
 "Fractional uncertainties" -> "Relative uncertainties"

***************************************************************************

...to be continued....


Hi,

here is part 2 of my comments.

Cheers.

 - Pedro

*************************************************************************

p35 l5
 "eta" -> "|eta|"
 
p35 l7-9
 If I am not mistaken you didn't mention the term "relative correction" 
until here. So I suggest to write:
 "The relative corrections are introduced to flatten the eta dependence of
the calorimeter response. This implies also a correction for both the
transverse spreading of calorimeter showers outside the jet cone and any
eta dependence of gluon radiation and multiple parton interactions".

The later statement perhaps requires a reference to an external study or
to something that you explain in the following sections.

p35 l11 
 At this point nobody external knows what "pT balance" actually means
(deviation of the transverse part of the sum of the two leading 
jet momenta from zero? Or is it beta?).  

p35 l18
 I am wondering what is the motivation for writing "DeltaP_T f". And what 
is f? Just write "Delta pT / pT^ave" , you are not refering to the factor 
f anyway.

p35 l22,24,25
 Replace "Deltap_T f" bt "Delta p_T/  pT^ave".

p35 l3 - p36 l5
 Start enumeration with upper case.

p35 l20
 Typo, should be "probe". 

p35 l30
 Skip "(jet,jet)".

p36 l1
 Should be "7 GeV"

p36 l4 
 That is too sloppy or misleading. Explain what cuts you imposed. Is that 
just the +5GeV cut or what? Not clear here.

p36 l6,7
 Need to specify here what the difference is between the jet samples
("...four jet samples covering different ET ranges ..."). The
interpolation thing (which need to be explained in more detail) is not
part of the actual correction procedure, so it would be better to decouple
the second part of that sentence like: "The individual correction factors
derived for discrete eta bins were interpolated using a ??? function, in
order to make the correction smooth in eta".

p36 l8
 At least mention briefly the functional form of that pT dependend 
correction.

p36 l18-20
 You say that the plug response is higher than the central response, but
looking into figure 9 and 6 you see that the single particle response is
lower in the plug than in the central. That might be related to resolution
effects in the E/p measurement in the plug leading to too small E/p
values, which I mentioned in the last JER meeting, or with the impact of
neutral particles - so again be careful with your statement on
page 6 l15-17 that I mentioned in my last email.

p36 l25
 Omit "separate" in the second sentence (you repeat it three times)

p36 l26
 Better: "By deriving the corrections separately..."

p36 l32
 "...causes a pT dependence, and will be taken..."

p37 Sec 6.3
 This section is too sloopy. How did you vary the seletion cuts? How do 
they contribute to Table 2? At least mention the most important ones. 

p39 l2,3,22
 Avoid using italics (what is so special about "absolute" etc.).

p39 l3
 Sounds a bit unlucky, better: "The absolute correction aims to transform
the jet energy measured in the calorimeter into the energy corresponding
to the underlying particle jet." (or so)

p39 l22
 "probability density"

p39 l23
 "...given a particle jet..."

 "This probability density function is..." -> "dP is" 
(don't need to repeat this lengthy word).

p39 l24
 "parametrized" (American style)
 By the difference of what?
 "...by the difference Delta pT = pT^particle - pT^calo of the transverse 
momenta ..."
 then you can skip l28, "where Delta pT..."

p39 l30 
 "...second Gaussian, N2"

p39 l32
 Typo, should be "parametrize"

p39 l33
 Better: "...each parameter can be written as a sum of a constant term and 
a term ..."

p40 l5:
 Typo, should be "parametrization"

p40 l10
 In Eq. 28 write dpT^calo in lower case, to be consistent with the text
 See also line 7 dpT^particle.

p40 l11
 "...maximize the agreement in this equation" doesn't make sense. Skip
this sentence since you describe in the following what you really do.

p40 l12
 Skip "over all particle jets".

p40 l14
 "To extract the ten parameters of f(DeltapT)..." 
 (if you skip the sentence on line 11)

p40 l18
 better: "where N is the number of particle jets."

p40 l20
 Skip the comma.

p40 l25,26
 Here you repeat the cone sizes you use. (see line 22)

p41 l4
 better: "For p_T^calo < 8 GeV..." 

p41 l5
 "1 GeV seed threshold". As already  mentioned in my previous mail you 
have to explain that in Section 3.1.

p41 l10
 "Since THE jet response..."

p42 l2
 "...to charged and neutral particles with momentum p"

p42 l7
 better: "inside the jet depending on the jet pT..."

p42 l8
 Avoid italics.

p43 Sect. 7.2.1
 Now you switch to "we" style that is inconsistent with the previous 
sections. That should be corrected.

p43 l2
 "The measurement OF THE calorimeter ..."

p43 l3
 Typo, should be "parametrize"

The first and second sentences have lots of repititions. Perhaps better: 

"The measured calorimeter response R(p)=<E/p> (see Section 5) is 
 parametrized as follows:
   <Eqn.32-33>
 using the data depicted in Figure 8."

p43 l7
 "fractional uncertainty" -> "relative uncertainty"

p43 l9-11
 You need just one equation number.
 (use \nonumber directive in eqnarray)

p43 l12
 "Eq. (32)"


p43 l26
 Better "...by embedding simulated tracks..."
 It is unclear what "simultaneously" means in this context.

p43 l27
 Typo, should be "parametrized".

p44 Fig. 21
 Skip "from simulated particles"

p44 l4
 "for four values OF pT^calo."

p44 l6
 "apart from at very low" -> "except for very low"

p45 l5
 Omit comma after "Note".

p45 l7
 "...as is the case FOR electromagnetic particles..."

p45 l16
 "...e.g., FOR pT^calo = ..."

p45 l18
 Skip "(PYTHIA and HERWIG)" to avoid repitition.
 "...as A function of..."

p45 l24
 "Sec. 2.3. This value is taken ..."


p46 Fig 22
 Y axis title in bottom plot should be "fractional loss (MC-data)"

p48 l14
 Add comma after Nvtx.

p48 l21,l26
 "minimum bias"

p48 l31
 "...for three different cone sizes..."

p48 l32
 Better: "This" -> "It"

p48 l34
 Better: "E_T^R versus Nvtx is shown..."

p48 l35
 Skip "versus Nvtx".

p49 l1
 Typo, should be "parametrized"
 Better: "The data are represented using a fitted straight line with
coefficients given in Table 3."

 What is the fit range?

p49 l2
 "...as A function of..."

p49 l3
 Better: "...close but consistently larger than zero"

p49 Table 3
 "Multiple interaction corrections"

p50 Fig. 25
 The stat box of the bottom plot overlaps with the X title of the top 
plot. Place stat box at top left of each plot inside the plot frame.

p50 l2
 "represented" -> "indicated"

p50 l4, p51 l2
 Don't capitalize too much.

p50 l7
 better: "...for several samples"

p51 l1
 "minimum bias data"

p51 l5
 Better: "...where the linearity is ..."

p51 l8,9
 Better: "...by repeating the measurement for the several samples
 mentioned above."

p51 l12-13
 Sentence is too long.

p51 l15
 "...a total systematic uncertainty of..."

p52 l6
 "The parton energy..."

p52 l13,l16
 "underlying event"

p52 l14
 You already defined the abbrevation FSR.

p52 l18
 "rather" -> "almost"

p52 l24
 "escaping from the cone"

p52 l25,26
 Sentence somehow awkward, better:
 "...by comparing the energy measured nearby and far away  
from the jet cone with the simulation based on Pythia and Herwig."

p52 l29
 "...matched to partons within Delta R...

 Typo, should be "parametrize".

 "difference of THE energy"

p53 l5
 What are the uncertainties associated with the UE energies quoted?

p53 l6
 "..., respectively."

p53 l9
 "...by comparing"

p53 l9,10
 Here you partially repeat what you already said on page 52.

p53 l12
 "...within annuli of radius r1 and r2 around the jet AXIS ..."

p54, formula
 "ntower" -> "N"
 "i" -> "i=1" 

p54, l1
 "where N is the number of towers for which r1 > sqrt(...) > r2.
(I am not sure if you can say "extend").

p54, l2,3
 The first sentence is a repitition of page 52. Skip also the next 
sentence, you don't need here.

p54 l4,5
 Better: "between the pT(...) obtained from data and Pythia and Herwig, 
respectively, for different annuli. The largest difference is observed at 
low ..."

p54 l6
 "is taken to be" -> "is defined as"
 (if you want to use "taken" than it is better to switch the order)

 Better: "For each pT^calo a systematic uncertainty is defined as the 
     largest..."

p54 l9
 "..the uncertainties shown in Fig..."

p54 l10
 The reader needs a brief explanation how the factor is derived.

p54 l18
 Use uniform fonts for JIMMY, HERWIG etc.

p54 l19
 I don't understand this sentence.

p54 Sec. 9.2.2
 2nd sentence: "depends on THE jet ET"
 3rd sentence: "in THE data"
 6th sentence: "deg" -> latex degree sysmbol (might be \circ, not sure)
   "...,this region ... Transverse Region" don't know how you define the 
   plane. From Ricks talks I guess you mean something like:
  "...are selected. The projection of this region into a plane defined by 
   the axis of the leading jet and the beam pipe is in the 
   following referred to as the 'transverse region'." 
 
p55 Fig 28.
  Font size in legend is too small.
  What is pT^gamma?
  If the pT s are momenta, unit is GeV/c.

p55 l1
 "Fig. 29 shows..."

p55 l2
 ":" -> "."
 "This value is taken..."

p55 l6
 "minimum bias"

p56 Fig 29
 "/sl"
 Omit quotation marks for "transverse"
 You need to introduce ISAJET (with the other MC used).
 Omit the global title box.
 "charged jet" -> "jet"

p56 Sec 9.3
 It would be very useful for the reader to motivate why you distinguish 
between  OOC and splash out.

p57 l11
 Omit comma.

p57 l13
 "In THE presence..."

p57 l16
 Skip "(MC)"
"accounts"

p57 l18
 "photons"

p57 l22
 "less than 2GeV/c"

p57 l23
 Explain the tight cuts on the shower shape.

p57 l25
 Skip "lowest".

 "using A statistical method..."

p57 l32-34 
  Start with capital and close with a point.

p58 l5
 "...Fig. 30..."

p58 Fig 30:
  Y axis label: "p_T^calo" -> "p_T^jet"
  In plot: "gamma+jets samples, cone size 0.4"
  caption text: 
 "...as a function of eta_jet for a cone size of 0.4."
  
p58 l10
 "Left plots in Fig. 31 show ..."

p58 l13
 What do you mean with "for the MC"? Also PYTHIA and HERWIG mentioned in 
l11 are MC. I guess you mean something like "for the 
detector simulation" or "full simulation on detector level".

p58, l7-14
 Very often you repeat "PYTHIA, HERWIG" which sounds stiffly. Once you 
introduced the generators you can also say "generators" or so, which is 
unambigous in the context.

p59 Fig 31
 Explain "is also shown for MC", se above comment
This are normalized distributions, right? Mention it in the caption.
Put the text inserted in the histograms at the same relative position, 
and increase the font size.

p59 l3
 Do you mean "...to be about 9% lower than the data?"

p59 l4
 "Compared to the data..."

p59 l6
 "...cone sizes. In particular for R=1.0 the mean..."

p60 Table 4,5
 "gamma" -> "\gamma"
 "correction" -> "corrections"
  Don't capitalize too much.
  "The values ARE given..."
 "and at particle jets" -> "and particle jets"

What are calorimeter jets? Is it what you obtain after applying absolute 
corrections to measurement/detector simulation? So I assume that 
"particle jets" is just generator level jets, and not "particle-level jets" 
mentioned a previous Section. These terms might be a bit confusing to the 
reader.

p60 l3,5
 This sentence is a tautology. Just write
 "The observed differences between the generators reflect the 
different modeling of the underlying physics processes."
(don't need to repeat all the same subprocesses  that you anyway have 
introduced in page 17)

p60 l5
 "for the small" -> "for a cone size"

p61 l1
 This sentence is incomplete.

p61 l3
 "19-20%" -> "around 20%"
 "2-1%" -> "1-2%"

p61 l6
 "and radiation. Even ..."

p61 l11
 "Table 11 shows..." 

p61 Table 6
 Caption: "Measured ...and Herwig for jet cone sizes 0.4, 0.7 and 1.0."

p61 l15
 "The difference between the data and the generators..."

p61 l20
 "The advantage..."

p61 l24
 "...Fig. 32..."

p61 l25
 "...two cone sizes,..."

p62 Fig 32
 Y axis titles: Skip "/bin".
 Keep both legends consistently.
 Skip "closed black".
 "histogram" ->  "solid line"  (both are histograms, right?"

p62, l9
 Too many commas.
 Refer to Eq. 22.

p63 Fig.33
 The left and right plots have different sizes.
 Skip the boxes with the formula. beta is explained in the text.

p63 l2, p64 Fig. 34
I needed lots of time to figure out that in Figure 34 you show the ratios 
data/MC for Pythia and Herwig. If that is true, please make it clearer in 
the refering text, p63, l1.

p63 l10,12
 "missing Et projection fraction" 
  Put a reference in the first sentence mentioning MPF.

p63 l14
 "...where the missing Et...

p63 l16
 "equal"->"equivalent"

p64 l1
 We don't need this line since you already described this equivalence 
verbally.

p64 l2
 Replace "Delta pT f" (see comment in my previous mail)

p64 Fig. 34
 X-axis title should be "|eta|"
 The figure caption is confusing. See comment above.

p64 l11
 Omit the comma.

p64 l16,17
 Better: "Therefore b_dijet is expected to be smaller than p_MPG, as shown 
in Fig. 36, thus giving a larger correction factor."

 (thus we skip the trivial statement in between)

p64 l20
 "...as the primary correction method."

p65 Fig 35 
 Skip the boxes with the formula. beta(MPF) is unambigous and explained in 
the text. 
 The left and right plots have different sizes.

p65 l1
 "Fig. 36"

p65 l3
 "For data... then increases up to 1.2 at |eta| ..."

p65 l4, p66 l1
 Better: "However, HERWIG is clearly inconsistent with the data since it 
does not follow the rise at high |eta|."

p66 l9-12
 Better: "It was also veryfied that there is no remaining PT dependence of 
the calorimeter response after applying all jet corrections. The gamma-jet 
balance versus pT for data, PYTHIA and HERWIG MC is shown in Fig. 37 for 
all regions of pseudorapidity and after applying all corrections."

p66 l13
 "We further test..."

p66 l15
 "Fig. 38..."

p66 l16,l19
 Put \gamma as superscript of p_T, to be consistent with the 
previous notations.

p66 l20
 "...uncertainties. In Fig. 39...with the HERWIG MC, leading to the 
same conclusion."

p66 l26
 "...the jet p_T balances the transverse momenta of ..."

p66 l28
 This wasn't shown in the previous sections, so you have to say "Further 
studies have shown that the W mass...."

p66 l31
 particle jet level / particle level jet / particle jet
 Be careful not to confuse the reader too much.

 Better: "For the dijet process, the data do not support the ..."

p66 l33
 "different behaviour" -> "discrepancies"

p66 l34
 Skip "re".
 What does "extra jet activity" mean?

p68 Fig 38, p69 Fig 39
 Better: "Difference ... between data and ... as A function of..."
 "The curves indicate..."

p70 l5
 "modeling" (American English)
 "modelling" (British English)

p70 Fig 40
 Caption: "...0.2< |eta| <0.6."
 Is pT a momentum or an energy? Check the units in all plots.

p70 l10
 "For pT>60 GeV/c..."

p70 l11
 Beginning sentences with "This is..." is bad style. 

p70 l14
 "in situ data" -> "CDF Run II data". You can formulate stronger that 
this improvement is being studied.

p71 l1
 Again "This can..."

The summary should mention some typical numbers for the absolute 
uncertainties derived (e.g. low PT, intermediate and hight PT)

p71 l4
 "fragmentation models"

p72 l8
 "in situ"

p72 l7
 "were calibrated" -> "are calibrated" (keep time consistently)

p72 l9-11
 Replace "many comparisons of Monte Carlo generators...were presented"
because there is no information or conclusion here. Write e.g.: "The
shower simulation was in particular tuned in detail to the data in the
central part. Using several MC generators it proves to provide a good
description of the energy response of various physics processes such has
J/psi and W decay."

p72 l11-12
 There is a verb missing in that sentence.

Here it would be nice to mention that the improvements in the
measurement of the jet energy scale led to a substantial increase
of the precision of various physics analyses (like top mass 
determination).


**********************************************************************

-Use consistently Fig., Sec., Eq., Eqn. 
-Use units for mass, momenta, energies consistently. 
-If possible avoid additional frames around plots and legend boxes since 
it optically overloads the relevant information in the plots.  
-In formulas and math environments, it is recommended to write
words ("jet", "tower", "calo") or abbrevations ("T" for transverse) which
are not variables ("E","x","y","i") in \mathrm{} environment.