=============================================================

I also agree that the draft is almost ready for the collaboration.
Here are a few comments on version 0.5

Page 1, In order to make the beginning of the paper stronger....
Could we say that this is the first GMSB limit in gamma gamma met that
uses the EM timing system ???? Is this correct ????

==>Line 21 on p.1 tells us about it. This isn't the first GMSB search with
EMTiming.

Page 2 line 11
Both are used to identify photons, electrons, jets (j) [15] and MET and
measure the 4-momenta.
I suggest to change it to :
Both are used to identify and measure the 4-momenta of photons,
electrons, jets (j) [15] and 
provide MET information.

==>Done.

Page 2 line 17-18 I would not put a new para here.

==>Done.

Page 2 I find the sentence "The set of remaining events confusing"
Before you say "from this sample we create a subset of events with two
photons ...."
By saying "the set remaining events" I am not sure that you convey that
you still talking about the subset.

I suggest
We then select events with two photons with |eta|<1.1 and ET>13 GeV.
Offline, both photons are required to be in the fiducial part of the
calorimeter and pass the standard CDF photon identification and
isolation requirements [8] with two minor modifications to remove
instrumental and electron backgrounds [14, 16].  These events are
dominated by SM production of .....

==>Done.

Page 3 line 7
The systematic uncertainty is dominated by the uncertainty of metmodel
resolution functions
I suggest
The systematic uncertainty in the metmodel is dominated by the
uncertainty in the resolution functions

==> Done.

Page 3 line 22
where we use the same diphoton triggers and analysis selection
procedures as used for our inclusive gamma gamma sample.
Change to 
where we use the same diphoton triggers and analysis selection
procedures developed for the inclusive gamma gamma sample.

==>Done.

Page 4 figure 1.

"There is no evidence for new physics and the data is well modeled by
backgrounds alone."
Remove interpretation from the figure caption you can put it in the text
in page 3 line 29 for example.

==>Similar sentence is in line 21 on page 5. So I only took this out of the caption.

Page 5 line 24 
Why not having the D0 limits in your figure ??? you do show aleph
Or otherwise putting the d0 limit in the text ????

==>They don't search non-zero lifetime region and for tau=0 their limit is way below.

Page conclusion
Is there a way to quantify how much you improved because of larger data
set and how much because because of the new analysis method?
It would be nice to have something quantitative.

==>Based on 202/pb results and scaled backgrounds with luminosity of 2.6/fb,
there could be total background of 3.51+-1.56 and signal acceptance of 4.9+-0.9% for neutralino mass=125 GeV.
Their expected cross section limit then is 56.6fb 
So considering production cross section limit of about 50fb, neutralino mass
could be excluded up to ~123 GeV (our limit 149 GeV).
This tells us our results with new techniques improve the previous results by
~20%. But this is too much detail for PRL.
 

Best daniela