Florencia, I read through the paper this weekand and am attaching my comments Florencia Canelli wrote: Dear all, There is an improved version of the JES NIM paper at http://www-cdf.fnal.gov/~canelli/JES_NIM/ Thank you for sending very useful comments (also in the above web page). We need a couple of people to read this version in the next days. Any volunteers? We would like to send it out in one week from now. There is a preliminary author list in page 2: not in the final format. Could you please check it? I apologize if I forgot anyone. Thanks - Florencia Page 5, line 34: tunning -> tuning Page 6, line 8: Jet -> Jets Page 17, Lines 12-14: I suggest rephrasing the sentences as follows "In all cases, Monte Carlo samples are generated using both PYTHIA 6.2 [21] and HERWIG 6.3, with CTERQ5L [24] parton distribution functions." Page 17, line 21-22: Correct anecdotal comment "what range" Page 18, lines 6,7: I suggest rephrasing the sentence as follows The recent model for the underlying event, JIMMY [23], has not been used for this analysis. Page 18, line 8,9. I suggest rephrasing the sentences as follows (although it is still awkward) They are then processed through the standard data reconstruction program as the data. The details of particle and calorimeter jet reconstruction are in Section 3. Page 19, line 3 .. each of the parameters is tuned... Page 19, line 21-22. We outline the paramerizations used for electromagnetic and hadronic shower development below. They are descirbed in detail in [29]. Page 20, line 1. fracvtions -> fractions Page 20, line 12. showers -> shower Page 20, line 19. pi0 s -> pi0 is Page 22, line 37 tracking -> track Page 23, lines 6,7 .. these read very awkwardly.. bujt I don't have a good solution. Page 27, line 5 2x2 block, are -> 2x2 block is Page 27, lines 10,11 Delete the sentence starting " In addition in the very forward region..." Page 27, line 24. madge -> made Page 31, line 14. electron candidates -> electron candidates, Page 34, Caption for Figure 16, check wording an meaning. Page 40, line 5 then -> thus Page 48,line 29. towers -> tower Page 50, Figure 25. The horizontal error bars are not correct (really there isn't an error on the number of vertices) Page 51, Figure 26. Fix the caption Page 53, Figure 27. The caption doesn't agree with the caption inside the figure indicating the meaning of each of the 3 lines. Page 54, line 18. Also, -> Not also that Page 55, line 2.. 30% are taken as systematic .. Qu. 30% of what ? Page 57, line 15 extend -> extent Page 57 line 20 studies -> studies, Page 58, line 10. Left plots in Fig. 31 shows -> The left plots in Figure 31 show Page 61, Table 6. It looks like there is a systematic slope in the data. You need to remind the reader of figure 28, and the Page 61, Section 10.1.2. There is no statement about the Pt require3ment on the Z and there should be Page 62, Table 7. The results shown in this table don't seem to be consistent with no effect as a function of cone size. Need some words to explain what is seen in the figure. Page 62, Section 10.2. I do not think that you are handling the systematic uncertainties consistently. the point to point systematic uncertainty is not the same as the overall systematic and there is a clear correlation with Pt in Figure 37. Pages 61, 62. In general you need some concluding paragraph to the two sections on these pages. Page 66, line 16,17; 22,23. I don't think that you can say that gamma-jet balance is independent of gamma Pt, given figure 37. Page 67, Figure 37 errors on Pt ar wrong - should be the weighted Pt in the bin with an rms within the bin (probably needed elsewhere too.)