Dear Authors, Dear GodParents,

   The ggMET GMSB draft v0.4 is in a very good shape - I have read it again
   and have few minor comments/suggestions, please see below (at this point
   all the changes are really up to the authors - feel free to leave the
   text as it is if you prefer).

Best Regards,
                     andrey

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

Andrey Loginov's comments to the draft v0.4 of ggMET paper of double spaced single column:
http://hepr8.physics.tamu.edu/elee/ggMetPRL/ggmet_prl_v0.4_double.pdf

-----------------------------------------------------------
text
-----------------------------------------------------------

page 2:

P2 L1

suggest to define H_T here instead of P4 L7
"total event transverse energy" -> "total event transverse energy
($H_T$, a scalar sum of $E_T$ of photons, jets and $\met$)"

==> "Total event transverse energy" in this sentence is little different than HT we defined.
HT is a scalar sum of ET of clustered EM energy. Also jets haven't been defined yet.

P2 L3

As you referenced CDF Run II detector (page 1, line 23) suggest to
omit (page 2 line 3)
"A full description of the CDF Run II detector can be found
elsewhere [12]."

and update the next sentence to
"Here we briefly describe the aspects of the CDF Run II detector [12]
relevant to the analysis."

==>Done.

P2 L16:
Add a very short description of photon ID cuts? (this will add few
lines). For instance, this is what we had in lg+X PRL (4.5 lines):

"Photon candidates are required to have no track with pT > 1 GeV, and
at most one track with pT < 1 GeV, pointing at the calorimeter
cluster; good profiles in both transverse dimensions at shower
maximum; and minimal leakage into the hadron calorimeter [16]."

==>Since we're already over length we'd prefer not to do it unless Anrey feels
strongly. If the other GPs or the reading institutions request it then we'll
add it quickly. Our guess is that the reading institutions will make
suggestions for things to add as well.

page 3:

P3 L3:

"should have" -> "have"

==> Done.

P3 L16-17
"The PYTHIA[17] MC ... are fakes."

From the sentence it sounds like you say that both photon candidates
are fakes in ttbar sample only. Suggest to rephrase.

==>Done.

P3 L30
75 -> 75 GeV

==> Followd the same style as in the delayed photon PRL/PRD.
Not, 75 GeV < m < 150 GeV, but 75 < m < 150 GeV.

P3 L32

"the masses of the sparticles" - which sparticles, all the particles
in the model [11]? Suggest to clarify.

==>The end of sentence has such description:"....for our model"

P3 L18
"both photon candidates are fakes" - is it both e->gamma and j->gamma?

==>Yes.

P3 L34
"ID efficiency" - jargon
Suggest to say "identification efficiency" (or define ID before)

==> Defined ID in line 15 on page 2.

page 4

P4 L7:
suggest to define HT on P2 L1

==>Same answer as in the first comment.

page 5

P5 L14

you have "1.38 $\pm$ 0.44" here vs "1.4 $\pm$ 0.4" in the
abstract. Suggest to have the same numbers in both places.

==>Done.

P5 L30

can you comment on the expected limit if combined with DZero? (even if
you don't put this to the paper, I will be curious what you'd
expect...)

==> The first 202pb-1 was combined with D0 for tau=0.
This isn't trivial exercise now since we exclude non-zero lifetime and 
we don't know how D0 detector responds to this.
===========================================================================