- ch 1: detector overview->experiment overview

- ch 2: See general comments.
 Not only GEANT description, but a proper
DICE description, plus explanation what is 98_2 etc etc. Where is
reconstruction? ATLFAST vs full sim/reconstruction
- describe coordinate system here once and for all
- pileup: since this affects differently different detectors, it should
be described in the detector chapters (remove from chapter 2.1.2?)

- ch 3: No reference to beam tests anywhere? Are SCT detector resolutions
tested, for ex? For TRT there should be beam test data. System test
plans?
- ipatrec etc-> reference
- coordinates-> define in ch 2. 98_2 and so on-> define in ch 2.
- 3.2.1 Define NEG
- 3.2.1 Is the discusion of layouts that were not adopted relevant.
- 3.3 reconstructed track parameters: it is not said if this is
with or without pileup
- 3.3 remind the reader that  "solenoidal field" means the actual
field.
- pagination problems around 3.3.1.3, too much space after the section
headers. cot\theta is in the wrong font (so are most of the other
headers)
- figure 3-6 the symbols are not distict, there are no open triangles;
becuse they are under the closed circles they are filled in.
- p.15 brackets around pt sqrt(sintheta), use the equation editor
- p.17 arising from K0s decays FOR EXAMPLE
- p. 19 reduces the track curvature - should be increases??
- p.19 ref to Fig. 3-16 should point at 3-17
- p.23 fig 3-21 (ref to 3-4) and table 3-1: up to eta=2.2 or 2.5?
- table 3-1 caption is unclear; add "integrated/averaged over pseudo-rapidity"
- 3.4 I would move 7.2.1.3 here
- 3.5.1.2 acornym PR (spell it out as it is not used elsewhere)
- A plot would be nicer than table 3-2
- 3.5.1.3 this is SCT noise. Are noise issues at TRT a minor effect
due to real track occupancy? What about pixel noise?
- 3.5.1.4 aging is the main effect I guess. What about the TRT dead
straws and aging? Pixels?
- 3.5.1.6 misalignment -> see 3.7 alignment strategies
- 3.5.2.The footnote has drifted to the next page, try tp avoid
footnotes
- Figure 3-30 This must depend upon the track density and hence on the
jet energy.
- p. 29 figures 3-26, 3-27 unclear
- 3.5.4 proposed middle figure is the same as in 3.4 page 11?
- 3.6.1 compress, for ex are figures 3.32-33 informative?
- Figure 3-3 Box should not overlap plot.
- 3.6.2.1 S/B mass distribution plot
- 3.7.1 SCT only? Global tracker alignment? Which detectors do you 'fix'?

- 4.1.1 p. 43 changes described extensively. C-side is not explained
(ch. 2). HCAL section says that the bolts are in iron and Ti/Al bolts
are being studies, here it says that they ARE Al.
- 4.1.3 Should I know what an "aliasing effect" is?
        lentgh is misspelled throuhoout
        "current i (t)' use equation for i(t)
- 4.2 p. 45 reconstruction environment described in XX - not at the
present. Detector specific reconstruction and simulation should
be described here.
- 4.2.1 use equation editor
- 4.2.1 p. 46 is the charge sharing made with a linear function?
If the effect is negligible, why bother...?
- 4.2.4 CPU time estimate needs to say on what processor (mac II, cray
xmp)
- 4.2.4.2 are the luminosity numbers peak or average?
- fig 4.4 BX not defined
- fig 4.5, 4.6 axes! and which line is which!
- fig 4.7 symbols not distinct
- fig 4-12 Kine not defined (change ordinate label)
- fig 4.16 Fixed E-T is used but the plot is shown with E. Specify E
in the caption (ie translate the 10 geV)
- 4.3.5 p. 59 last two paragraphs: discussed this already earlier
- figs 4-32, 4-33 something funny with y-axis title, symbols too big
- 4.5 pi->pi0 . Expect 4-5 pages? figures?
- fig 4-36 Labels unclear
- 4.6.3 - is mass scale chapter necessary, the material could be here.

- chapter 5 main problem: 3 detectors, tiles, HEC, FCAL
- eta should be pseudo-rapidity
- calibration strategy at LHC not addressed at all, what about jets.
- 5.1 p. 71 first 5 bullets described alreay in emcalo chapter. Iron
bolts here!
- fig 5.2 needs a scale
- 5.2.2.1 p. 76-77 does the finite size cone affect only HEC? What
about FCAL? Tiles? That looks pretty serious and "final" resolutions
should be given with realistic analysis.Add plots showing resolution
with energy independent coefficients. How will you get the energy
dependent coefficients for jets?
- 5.2.3 figs 5-10 and 11 in wrong order. First paragraph: what is the
conclusion here? 5-11 is far too small.
- 5.2.4 and elsewhere: what is H1 weighting? First tilecal compartment?
Experiment at DESY?
- 5.2.4.3 "Test beam set-up" should be a header.

6 Is there going to be a discussion of backgrounds, calibrations and
beam-tests?
- 6.1 p. 87 layout versions L, M,... why don't turn around the argument
and say that 'the TDR version is called L and the present M2'.
Spell out EM, EO, MDT  etc. when said for the first time.
- 6.2.3 Elliminate paragraphs with only 1 sentence.
- 6.2.4 addresses H-> 4m which is also in 8.6.2, 21.2.5.3, maybe also
in the Trigger performance as well...
- table 6-3 4 muons are not required in the trigger, so I don't understand
the table
- 6.3.1 it says that "particle trajectories cannot be approximated by simple
analytical calculations" and then 6.3.3 "analytical estimation of this
resolution is currently used which has the advantage..." ???
- reference to fig 6-12 "single muon resolution at the entrance of the
muon spectrometer" what does this mean? Resolution in the tracker?
- 6.3.3 What does "resolution at the entrance of the spectrometer"
mean? Do not use paragrahs inside bulleted lists.
- 6.3.4 Low-pt muons in the end-cap, lower than 6 GeV.
New studies on the way by S. Robins, Y. Hasegawa et al?

- 7.2.1.3 move TR to ID chapter
- 7.3.1.1 jet sample is NOT discussed elsewhere, should stay here
- 7.3.2 is already too detailed, appendix to atlas note
- p. 108-109 what cuts are actually made? say it, don't be rhetoric.
95% is total efficiency?
- fig 7-11 is too small
- table 7-1. No footnotes on tables please.
- table 7-3 p. 113 why show ipatrec if TRT e-id is not used?
- 7.3.4 material is in 12.2 (b-tagging)
- 7.4.1.1 xHourec is explained for barrel? is xconver used at all? if
not why mention?
- table 7-4 is not very clear.
- 7.5.3 here one suddenly refers to ATLFAST for g/jet separation.
Not explained anywhere, not justified with full simulation.
Background after cuts is mainly REAL photons so it is NOT background
(only 8% electrons, rest is photons).
- 7.7 mass spectroscopy -> ch 11 mass reconstruction
- 7.7.1 rate of Y->ee ? need mu6 for LVL1 trigger, and it does not
come from the same hard collision! Do you see these at all? Note
that J/psi is different since those from b can have the other b
decaying semileptonically. Direct J/psi to ee has the same problem.
- 7.7.2 Z->ee is already described in 4.6, with figures.
- 7.7.3 H->gg no much point being here, as well as 7.7.4 H->4e
- overlap here with Higgs chapter
- 7.7.4.3 chapter : why should be play any more with removing layers?
- 7.9 remove Appendix

- 8.2 low-pt muons it would be nice to include here muon chambers!
new work from Robins, Hasegawa, Stavropoulos. What is here
should be compressed.
- 8.2.1 tile geometry move to hcal section (missing there)
- 8.2.2 this is for pt>3 (not <3) I guess
- 8.2.3/5 bad figures
- figure 8-23 belongs in calorimetry section.
- 8.4 this is only high-pt muons in jets. Low-pt muons nowhere!
- 8.6 here is AGAIN mass reconstruction, now for H->4m , Z->mm
- 8.6.4 the real issue for charge determination for CP-physics is:
how well can you measure the trigger  and reconstruction efficiencies for
mu+ and mu-? Calibration statistics? Final systematic error?

9 Engish style, avoid split infinitives "to go boldly', "to calibrate
accurately" not "to boldly go" "to accurately calibrate"
- 9.1.1 mid of p. 150 there is description why to use Et, eta, phi->move
to coordinate description to be put in Chapter 2
- "The best results for resolution and linearity are obtained with
energy dependent weights" Where is this discussed for jets as opposed
to single particles?
- Figure 9-2 What is the shoulder around 100 GeV?
- 9.1.3 here there are some comparisons for jets in ATLFAST/DICE. Neither
is described. Move somewhere?
- Fig. 9-7 wrong caption/labels.
- Fig 9-8 has poor contrast.
- 9.1.4 p. 156 what is standalone GEANT? Can you in general put
pileup in ATLFAST? (no..)
- 9.2 Etmiss with A->tautau , the same material is in ch. 10 (tau-id
and measurements) so move it there and merge.
- 9.2.1 Are TP simulations relevant any more? If yes then one can
refer to TP! It seems that all the most critical features (eta-coverage,
calibration and noise) are with
the old simulation so here is nothing new?
- 9.2.1.1 remove paragraph breaks.
- 9.3.3 calibration with W->taunu looks weak. Furthermore the study
has been done with ATLFAST,  calibration studies would require full sim
(as is said later in p. 168).
- 9.3.3.2 remove equation numbers
- 9.3.4.1 Calibration discussion. What about low energy and test beams.
- p. 170 spell out ISR, FSR, MultiInt!
- Above table 9-4, Equation is messed up. Sentence beginning "To
demonstrate" has no verb.
- 9.3 conclusions on calibration of jet energy scale

- 10.3 too detailed. Say what the cuts are, don't describe the whole
optimization process. Don't describe variables which are not used.
- 10.5 tau-id: combine with W->taunu.
- 10.5.3 are crack studies from 95 valid?
- Figures 10-3, 10-4,a 10.5  and 10.6. Which lines are which?
- 10.7 high-L requires different tuning of cutoffs. You may have
high and low-L during the same beam coast.
- 10.9 Z->tautau to mass reconstruction. What is the difference in
10.9 and 10.10?

- ch 11
- Figures 11-2 and 11-3 are too small, stat box is unreadable
(remove?)
- Figures 11-4, 11-5 11-7 have no labels on ordinate
- Figure 11-13 is the same as 21-77.
- 11.4 A->tautau again.

- 12.0 no chapter 0!
- 12.2 soft electrons, see 7.3.4
- 12.3 soft muons, one would like to use them, too! Is there any hope?
- The layout of table 12-1 is very good. How did you do it?
- chapter 13 trigger performance, nothing (but material should exist)
- Figures 12-23 12-29  and 12-24 have rather odd fonts.


- chapter 15, luminosity, nothing (really nothing)

- 16.1.4-5 full-fast simulation to move to chapter 2.

- 17.5 most of  material from 19.1 (B-physics ) should go here


Chapter 19
shrinkwrap the equations

Chapter 21
- 21.1 Good that there is an introdution, all chapters should have
one. However the 4th paragrah is not needed; it belongs in the general
introduction.
Lots of studies are done for cases which are, or shortly will be,
excluded by LEP. In some cases the 80 geV is needed as it allows the
reader to extrapolate. The introdcution should comment on this.

The situation with regard to NLO corrections is unclear. The paragraph
beginning "Also for" (just above 21.2) is self contradictory.

21.2.2.1 The details around Fig 21-2 (paras begining "Jets were" and
"The performancs") are a repeat of 7-25 (chapter 7.6), summarize
and refer to the details in volume 1.

Table 21-2 check caption
Figure 21-5 and its discussion should be replaced with a summary and a
refarence to 11.2.2 where the same material is shown.

Is table 21-5 needed here? The basic conclusion is that the process is
probably not useable. The table should be in an ATLAS Note.
Figure 21-8 could also go to an atlas note (its similar to 21-7)

Figure 21-15 is the same as 8-47
Figure 21-14 is the same as 7-31
Figure 21-16 is the same as 8-45
Figure 21-17 is the same as 8-46
Suggest keeping 21-15, 21-14 and 21-17 here and refering to 8-45.
21.2.5.5 A lot of detail here is repeated from 7.2.1
Define SUMDI
Figures 21-32 thru 21-35 might be better as a table (they need to be
remade if they are retained)
Figures 21-36 and 21-37 are very difficult to read.
Table 21-20 is not laid out well. It might be better to move the
details to the text and remove the table.

Figures 21-42 thru 21-45 are the same as 9-6, 9-7, 9-10 and 9-11

The H  WW to jet jet l nu is presented in great detail for three
masses and the reader gets confused. Try discussing the stategy first,
one case (1 TeV) in detail, then the summary plots for the other cases
and refs to atlas notes. section 21.2.8.6 also needs to be integrated.

- 21.3.2.6 A->tautau again, try to avoid reprinting plots from volume 1.

The tan beta vs ma plots. 21-69 thru 21-76 21-86 21-91 21-94 21-95 21-97
21-101 21-102 21-111 thru 21-116.
21-112 shows the ultimate reach of atlas and should be a colored plot
as the lines are difficult to distinguish in black and white.
The other plots can be consoldidated to make them easier to reas and
WITHOUT loss of information. Here is  a suggestion. Put 21-69 thru
21-72  and 21-76 all on two plots, one for low, one for high luminosity. In this
was the reader can see at a glance how the various gamma-gamma
channels compliment each other. Solid, dashed, dotted and dot-dashed
lines can cleary differentiate the cases. Combine 21-89 and 21-73 and
21-74 into 2 plots for high/low luminosity. These are all the heavy
quark channels. 21-91 and 21-75 can be combined (lepton channels).
21-86 and 21-102 can be combined (both have taus)


- 21.3.3 SUGRA Higgs - here or susy chapter?
Suggestion here is that.
Table 21-62 belongs in the SUSY chapter. refer to discussion of SUGRA
model in that chapter.
Consoldiate Figures 21-19 thru 21-27
If Higgs is used to discover SUSY then it goes in SUSY section. If
SUSY is used to discover Higgs then it goes in Higgs section.
Therefore.
21.3.5.1 goes to SUSY as susy parameter are being determined. its
results can be referred to if needed in the Higgs chapter.
21.3.3.2 stays in Higgs chapter
21.3.3.3 goes to SUSY.
Figure 21-135 is in the SUSY chapter
Figure 21-136 should be in the SUSY chapter

-21..4.4 through 21.4..7 goes to Chapter 23.
 
Chapter 22
Get rid of equation numbers
remove appendix
Add current experimental limits
Remove Boxes from plots
remove opt box from 21-21 and 21-22

Chapter 23 gains sections on technicolor, monopoles, exotic quarks.

23.1 Use equation editor.
figs 23-1 thru 23-8: Symbols not distinct. Remove Fig # from plot