Hello Florencia and Beate,

Again, thank you very much for the new draft. It reads really nice I
think. I have just a few minor comments. I hope you find them helpful.

Thanks again.

Cheers,
Ken

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

] page-6, line 24:
 subs tract --> subtract


] page-7, line 17:
 correlate a particle to a calorimeter jet
             ^^^^^^^^ --> particle jet ???


] page-11, line 22-28:
 I think this part about the EM map correction can be improved.
 But, I haven't come up with a good alternative.


] page-12, line-23:
 Figure 2 shows the mean of ....

 Throughout the paper, use Fig. and Figs. (instead of Figure and
 Figures) ???


] page-12, line 29:
 From Fig. 2 and 3
      ---> Figs. 2 and 3


] page-13, Figure 3 caption:
 with Pt>20 GeV/c


] page-14, line 5:
 jet cone as $R=\sqrt{(\Delta(\eta^{tower}- ......))}$

 I think there is an extra "(" on the left of $\Delta$,
 and actually $\Delta$ is not necessary.

 At page-23, line 8:
 $\Delta R = \sqrt{(\eta_{CES}-.....)}$

 I think in this case the $\Delta$ on the left of R should be removed
 to be consistent.


] page-14, line 23:
 and $N_{tow}$ are the number of 
               ^^^--> is


] page-15, footnote:
 enough to not
  --> enough not to ??? 


] page-16, line 23-26:
 The jet20 and 50 data prescales changed during the course 
 of Run II.
 JET20: 240 (20x12x1) --> 500 (20x25x1) --> 1250 (50x25x1)
 JET50:  20 (20x 1x1)--------------------->   50 (50x 1x1)


] page-17, line 10:
 Herwig 6.3 --> 6.5


] page-19, line-18:
 particle showers shapes
     ---> particle showers  ???


] page-23, line 17:
 by a factor 3 
      --> by a factor of 3   ??


] page-25, line 14:
 and hadronic energy versus 
              ^^^^^^ ---> energies  ??


] page-25, line 32:
 70% at $|\eta|\approx1.2$ to 30% at $|\eta|=2.2$
               ^^^^^^^ --> =  ???

] page-28, line 2-3:
 Due to the difficulties above only a very preliminary tuning of the
 calorimeter simulation has been achieved as yet: only test beam data
 were used for the tuning of the plug simulation shown here.

 What I understood from Soon is that isolated tracks in MB data
 were used for the tuning of the plug simulation at p<5 GeV/c.
 Above p=5 GeV/c, tuning is based only on test beam. So, delete the
 part after ":" ??? What do you think?



] page-29, line-5:
 further further --> further


] page-32, line-7:
 $phi$-boundaries --> $\phi$-boundaries


] page-76, figure 41:
 I like this new figure in general, but I think it's nice to have a
 line at uncertainty = 0, or set the lower line to 0.
 Did you do this way because otherwise the UE uncertainty curve
 becomes invisible???


] page 38-43,
 The last sentence of the caption of Figs. 18-20.
 "The lines show the interpolation between the individual measurements
 used for correcting jets."

 They should be moved to caption of Figs. 15-17.


] page-45, line 16:
 reconstructed at calorimeter and particle level
        ----> reconstructed at the calorimeter and particle level ???

] page-48, line 7:
  between 2 and 4 \%....

  This is just a question. Is this consistent with the numbers in
  table 1 (page-34) where the total errors for changed hadrons are
  2.5%, 3.0% and 4.0% for the respective momentum ranges?


] page-53, line-8:
  November 2004 ---> August 2004


] page-56, line-5:
  Fig. ?? --> Fig. 28   :)


] page-65. line 4:
  the$\eta$-dependent --> the $\eta$-dependent


] page-71, line 3:
  How about changing $\beta(MPF)$ to $\beta_{MPF}$
  to make it similar to $\beta_{dijet}$ ??

  If you need additional plots, please let me know.


] page 73-74 (Figs. 39-40),
  The horizontal axis: $p_T^{corr}$ --> $p_T^{\gamma}$  ???

  Do you think it's better to keep data points at
  $p_T^{\gamma} > 110 GeV/c or 90 GeV/c ???

  Why are the error bars of the highest $p_T$ points
  in the 1.4<|eta|<2.0 plot in Fig 40 invisible?
  Just 1 entry? 

  I think it will be nice if the last |eta| bin can be divided into
  2.0-2.6 and 2.6-3.6, since that's the way how the relative
  correction systematics were divided, but I wouldn't insist :)


] page-79, refs. [6,7,9,10,11,13]
 remove comma's in front of et al.


] page-79, line 7 (ref [6]):
 S. Kuhlmann et al., ...

 This paper is basically for CPR2, but this paper is referred to for
 CES. I couldn't find a good references for CES, CPR, CHA laser system
 and Plug laser system.

] page-79, line 10 (ref [9]), 
 This muon detector paper is not cited in the text, I think. 
 Add to page-9, line-32 (after $|\eta|<0.6$)?? 

] page-79, line 16 (ref [14]),
 Is this quoted in the text???

] page-79, line 12 (ref [11]):
 A 272, 267  --> A 267, 272

] page-80, line 22 (ref [38]):
  B.~Abbott {\it et al.},
  Nucl.\ Instrum.\ Meth.\ A {\bf 424}, 352 (1999).

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++