-----Original Message-----

From: Sorensen, Paul
Sent: Friday, May 15, 2015 1:31 AM
To: Xu, Zhangbu
Subject: Re: [Starpapers-l] STAR Beam Use Request for run 16 and 17 (ready for collaboration feedback)

I believe there is an error in table 5-2. Isn’t CME supposed to be larger > in Ru+Ru and Zr+Zr? It’s listed as smaller < now.

-----Original Message-----
From: Carl Gagliardi [mailto:c-gagliardi@tamu.edu]
Sent: Thursday, May 14, 2015 4:05 PM
To: Xu, Zhangbu
Cc: rfatemi@pa.uky.edu; Aschenauer, Elke; 'Carl Gagliardi'
Subject: RE: [Starpapers-l] STAR Beam Use Request for run 16 and 17 (ready for collaboration feedback)

Hi Zhangbu (cc Renee and Elke):

I've made it through Sections 1-3 of the Version 12 draft BUR.  I systematically tried to ignore minor typos, etc., that the PAC members should be able to read over easily.  With that "constraint", I only have a few comments or suggestions so far:

--  General remark:  The "Highlights" section is written in a very brief style.  That's a good thing!  But it means the knowledge that the PAC members bring to the document will be critical for them to understand everything that's discussed.  (I admit that I had difficulty following some of the heavy ion highlights.)  During your PAC talk, I could imagine that you might get one or two "what's this mean?" questions from members who had their interest tweaked by some figure.  Be prepared.

--  Pg 13, Fig 2-9 caption:  j_T is ~ Delta R * z * pT_jet.  (The "* z" is

missing.)

--  Pg 16, 2nd last line:  "... into a new ERA of lower x ..."  (Admittedly, this is just a typo.  But I simply couldn't read past it!)

--  Pg 33:  The upper paragraph says Fig 3-2 is from p-Au running.  The figure caption says it's from p+p.  I suspect the figure caption is correct.

--  Pg 36:  At present, there is nothing in Sect 3.2 "Dataset for inclusive jet and dijet A_LL".  I'm probably the internal expert here.  Should I prepare a brief paragraph and update our standard Runs 9+15 projection plot for insertion here?

I'll drop you another note after I've made it through the Runs 16&17 requests sections.  I might (or might not) also have some retrospective suggestions for the Executive Summary at that time.

Carl