STAR Flow, Chirality and Vorticity PWG

[Prithwish Tribedy <ptribedy AT rcf.rhic.bnl.gov>]

Dear Vipul,
  Nice slides, please consider my following comments. With these 
included I sign off.

General comments:
Put a comment on the errorbars on each slide showing the plots like you 
do on slide#13. Specify if only statistical errors are plotted.
References: Use the standard format, such as "M. S. Abdallah et al. 
(STAR Collaboration) Phys. Rev. C 105, 014901". Cosmetic suggestion: it 
would be good to use similar color for the references (say blue).


Slide#2: "ΨR" --> "Ψ_R"
Slide#2: "stage of" --> "stages of"

Slide#3: How about this: "System size dependence of the azimuthal
anisotropy" --> "System size dependence of the azimuthal
anisotropy by comparing isobars, Cu+Cu, Au+Au and U+U"
Slide#3: "STAR, Phys. Rev. C 105 (2022) 14901" --> "M. S. Abdallah et 
al. (STAR Collaboration) Phys. Rev. C 105, 014901"

Slide#4: "Approximately 1.3 B events have been analys(z)ed" -- Not 
clear, is this for each species ?
Slide#4: Somewhere on this slide or later you need to add a comment on 
the
 sources of systematics for this analysis.

Slide#5: "φi --> φ_i"
Slide#5: "two different windows" --> "two different pseudorapidity 
windows"
Slide#5: In the third bullet add "using η-sub event approach". An 
average sign <..> is missing in this equation inside "√".
Slide#5: In the legend of the figure: "Ψ_2<....>0.05<|η|<1.0" --> "Ψ_2 
(0.05<|η|<1.0)", remove the space and put parentheses.

Slide#6: Can we make the figures bigger?

Slide#7: "with a function" --> "with a Fourier fit function"
Slide#7: what is the rapidity window for these results ?

Slide#10: Why the acceptance for φ is different from that of Ξ ? 
According to slide 8, don't we have φ meson results for |y|<1 ? Is this 
a typo ?

Slide#11: The rapidity window should be mentioned.

Slide#12: I realized that the legends for the black dashed lines are 
missing in the plots, we can add them next to the numbers in the blue.
Slide#12: Looking at the numbers for Λ, I see that the ratio is about 2% 
which is larger from what we saw in STAR isobar paper for charged 
hadrons (~1%) in mid-central events. We need to understand this. Can you 
remind me how were the systematic errors propagated in the ratio?
Slide#12: "May indicate larger nuclear deformity
in Ru than in Zr nucleus" --> "May indicate nuclear shape and structure 
difference between the two isobars"


Slide#13: "*Error bars..." -- Good, add such comments on other slides as 
well.
Slide#13: Polish the last bullet to indicate that there are large 
systematics.

Slide#14: "May indicate higher deformation in Ru than in Zr nuclei" --> 
"May be related to nuclear shape and structure difference between the 
two isobars"


Best,
Prithwish








On 2022-06-22 11:00, webmaster--- via Star-fcv-l wrote:
> Dear star-fcv-l AT lists.bnl.gov members,
>
> Vipul Bairathi (vipul.bairathi AT gmail.com) has submitted a material for 
> a
> review, please have a look:
> https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/node/60024
>
> ---
> If you have any problems with the review process, please contact
> webmaster AT www.star.bnl.gov
> _______________________________________________
> Star-fcv-l mailing list
> Star-fcv-l AT lists.bnl.gov
> https://lists.bnl.gov/mailman/listinfo/star-fcv-l