Dear authors.

  Sorry for delay on the comments for jet NIM paper,
  and thank you for providing good NIM draft, which 
 has proper length. Good to read.

  Followings are my comment. Could be too detail,
 but hope it would be useful for your publication.

  Cheers,
  Taka



 (0) "Figure" and "Fig." have to be united in the article.



 (1) p5, line5:   15$^{o}$  -->  15$^{\circ}$

 (2) p6, line2:   You could define "quadrature sum symbol".
                 For the experts of calorimeter, there is no need
                 to explain, but reader might be non-expert.

 (3) p6, line38:  Cs137 calibration has reference?

 (4) p11, line3:  due to the shorter integration gate in RunII.
              --> due to the shorter ADC integration gate in RunII.

 (5) p12, line9:  as function of run number This run
              --> as function of run number. This run
                 (add period)

 (6) p12, line15: For a jet which deposits typically 70%of
              --> For a jet which deposits typically 70% of

 (7) Figure4    : You could mention why you choose 1.5% as a
                 uncertainty. RMS of stability? Related to this,
                 you could comment on the points which are far
                 from dashed line (i.e. more than 2 sigma difference)
      
     caption    : line2:  number. the CMUP muons
                    -->   number. The CMUP muons

 (8) p17, line2 : You should remove the words, 
                 "an electron transverse energy"

 (9) p17, line4 : requiring two electrons with
             -->  requiring two muons with

 (10) p17, line11: You could mention on the mass window difference 
                  between electron and muon channels. (resolution?)

 (11) p18, line3:  Is there any intentions to use different
                  character types for "PYTHIA"?

 (12) p19, line19: It could be nice to move [29] to just after the 
                  word GFLASH in line 18.

 (13) p20, line1: "fracvtions" --> "fraction"

 (14) p23, line6-8: In total, 80% is measured by CEM+CHA.
                   So, 20%-50% --> 20%-55% ?

 (15) p27, line16: Do you understand why plug background is larger than 
                  central? Also, background estimation of the data
                  is larger than simulation?

 (16) p27, line24: "madqe" --> "made"

 (17) p31, line1 : "..corresponding to 10% of the total area of the tower."
               --> It could be a little confusing why you mention 10%.
                   I guess for one dimentional view, but you could
		   clarify.  Also, you have to unite this description
		   to table 1.

 (18) p31, line13: ".. within 10 GeV and the Z"
               --> ".. within 10 GeV of the Z"

 (19) p36, line1:  ".. be less than 7 for Minimum"
               --> ".. be less than 7 GeV for Minimum"

 (20) p36, line6:  "The corrections are obtained..."
               --> "The eta-dependent corrections are obtained .."


 (21) p36, line6:  ".. obtained for four different samples .."
               --> ".. obtained for four different ET threshold
	            samples (see section4) .."
 
 (22) p36, line31: "extrapolation procedure"
               --> you have to explain what extrapolation procedure.

 (23) p37, sec6.3:  At least you should explain what selection
                   criteria did you change briefly.
                   This section, descriptions are slightly short
                   to explain systematic uncertainties. 

 (24) p40, line18:  " where .."  --> "where .." (no indent)

 (25) p40, line20:  .. described in Section 4 are ..
              -->  You have to unite to "Sec." in the article.

           line22:  Same as above     

 (26) p42, line7 : same as item(24),  no indent to before "where".

 (27) p43, line4 : example for "Figure" in the sentence. Please unite.

 (28) p44, Fig.21: Caption does not explain "HERWIG" at all.
                  Please include it.

 (29) p45, line13: "jet20" 
                  Please remind the definition of this to the reader.

 (30) p48, line6,7: average number of interactions could be float
                   number? (not integer) 2.5 interactions @1E32?

 (31) p48, line15: ".. is shows in Figure 24 .."
               --> ".. is shown in Fig. 24 .."

 (32) p48, line19: "Figure 24 also shows the ...."
               --> If this sentence means left of Fig.24, this does
            	   not show #of vertices. Instantenious luminosity.

 (33) p48, L21-24: Do you understand this efficiency variation
                  qualitatively (sample dependence)? 
                   If you have, it could be nice to have
                  it in sentences.

 (34) p50, L1:     If you understand vertex reconstruction efficiency 
                  correctly, why don't you correct this effect to the
                  Min Bias sample? (80%) rather than to attach the
                  sistematic uncertainty.

 (35) P50 line4  : "Some evideince for this .."
                 --> I cannot see the evidence in Fig. 24.
                    (Fig.24 does not have <nvtx> == 5)
                    Should this be Fig.25?

 (36) section 8  : This section uses the word "Figure" in the all sentences.
                  Please unite to others. (Fig. or Figure)

  
 (37) p54 line22 : .. that the underlying event e.g. depend on jet ..
              -->  This "e.g." could be removed?

 (38) p54 line29 : .. transverse plane w.r.t. to the ..
              -->  .. transverse plane w.r.t. the ..

 (39) p55 line1  : Fig. 29  --> Figure 29   (head of sentence)
                   show     --> shows

 (40) p55 line6  : Figure 24  --> Fig. 25
                   (I think you mean figure 25 instead of 24)

          line5-8: This description could be discrepant with p49 L3-5?
                  Because you said "this non 0 intercept values are
                  due to 80% of vertex finding algorithm" in p49, but
                  you use these non-0 intercepts as UE estimation.
                  Should be consistent..


 (41) p56 Fig 29:  Title "Transverse PT Sum versus PT (charged
                  jet#1)" should be removed.

                   In horizontal axis lavel, you don't need
                  "(charged jet#1)"

                   In caption, you should remove "\sl".

 (42) p57, line16: You don't have to redefine "Monte Carlo (MC)"
                  because you defined this already before.

 (43) p57, line18: Isolated Photon --> Isolated photon

 (44) p58, line5 : Figure 30 --> Fig. 30

 (45) p61, line5 : This is seen both for carorimeter as for particle jet
               --> This is seen both for calorimeter and for particle
	       jet 
 
 (46) p61, line24: In Figure 32 --> In Fig. 32

 (47) p62, Fig32 caption:  you should remove "and R=1.0 (bottom left)"
                           R=0.4 (top left) --> R=0.4 (left)
                           R=0.7 (top right) --> R=0.7 (right)
      Why you don't have plot for R=1.0, by the way?
      (though you have it in table7) 

 (48) p62, line9 : .. of the dijet balance,,$\beta_{dijet}$, ..
               --> .. of the dijet balance, $\beta_{dijet}$, ..
                (two commas)

 (49) p63, line2 : Figure --> Fig.

 (50) p64 line17 : Figure --> Fig.

 (51) p66, line12: Figure --> Fig.
                
                   Don't you have comment or explanation on Fig.37?
                  For example, in Fig.31, PYTHIA has almost perfect 
                  jet-gamma balancing, while, it looks to me we have
                  slight minus bias in all Pt region of top plot of
                  Fig. 37. Am I wrong?

 (52) p66, line20: Figure --> Fig.

 (53) Fig38, 39: caption: and 0.4 (black triangle).
                     -->  and 1.0 (black triangle).

 (54) Fig40 caption: in 0.2|eta|<0.6  --> in 0.2<|eta|<0.6