From stroebel@ikf.uni-frankfurt.de Thu Apr 5 11:24:48 2012 Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2012 11:24:28 +0200 (CEST) From: Herbert Stroebele To: Peter Seyboth Cc: Diakonos Fotis Subject: Re: proton intermittency paper: Draft 5 Dear Peter and Fotis, here are my suggestions for wording. Best regards Herbert - sqrt(s) should be sqrt(s_NN) throughout. - page 2, left, line 3: replace "necessary" by "promising". - line 21: replace "with" by "to" - line 23: "detecting through" sounds unfamiliar to me. how about "by means of"? - line 28: replace "set" by "population" - line 7 from below: replace "much" by "far" . - right, line 1: comma after arguments - line 3: comma before if - line 25 from below: replace "performed" by "achieved" (performed ... with a purity sounds funny). - line 24 from below: comma after 20% and replace "required" by "obtained". In the next sentence the verb is at the end which is not good English. MAybe you can find a better ordering of words. - line 14 from below: I propose to remove this sentence. Also the weak decays will always be present! - page 3, left, lines 3 and 9: C+A and Pb+Pb need system or similar to be complete. - line 3 from below: is it correlations "of" or rather correlations "between"? - right, line 5: comma after diagram. - page 4, left, line 2: The "However" doesn#t make sense here. My version: The corresponding analysis of Pb+Pb data was not possible due to limitations of the experimental resolution. - line 6 from below: I suggest to invert the arguments: Thus, our analysis suggests that the critical baryochemical potential is closer to 240 MeV, the freeze-out potental at sqrt(s)=17.3 GeV, than to 380 MeV, the freeze-out potental at sqrt(s)=17.3 GeV. - page 5, line 3: replace "contains" by "encompasses".