STAR Flow, Chirality and Vorticity PWG

[Richard Seto <seto AT ucr.edu>]

Hi Xing

Poster comments
My main comment is that the plots are not easily visible especially the 
legends. Remember that these are posters and that people may not look at the 
plots closely if they cannot read them. 

Abstract: 
——————————
“Measurements of identified particle v1 and v2 is one”  —> “Measurements of 
identified particle v1 and v2 are some” 

“studied” -> “shown.”

Dataset and Experimental setup.
——————————————————
Why are you showing the vertex cuts? I don’t think they are needed. Just say 
the energy and total number of events analyzed.

- Why do you say modest rates? At the fixed target energy, the detector does 
not limit the rates. The rate is limited by the amount of beam available and 
things like pile up. I would leave that out.


Analysis Procedures -> Analysis Procedure
————————————————————————
- In the event plane resolution plots  make the legend larger.
You can get rid of “by Xing” and “by Guoping” and just show one of the sets. 
At the moment the ones “by Xing” are not visible.  That will give you more 
room.
Also make a little figure to indicate EPD A, EPD B etc.

In addition the y axis needs to indicate resolution of R1 and R12.

On the invariant mass method plots make the legend bigger.  They are not 
visible. 

v1/v2 Results
————
Make all legends bigger. 

Make a comment about systematic errors. e.g. mention what effects contribute 
most to the systematic error.
e.g. “The region taken to integrate the yield in the invariant mass 
distribution is the primary contribution to the systematic error.”   Or 
whatever it is. You don’t have to mention everything you looked at. You just 
want to give the reader and idea of what effects are most important.

Also, instead of saying “two centrality bins”, why don’t you either specify 
them, or call them central and mid-central?  (Actually I think specifying 
0-10% and 10-40% is better. )

Summary
—————

OK. 

Best Regards
-Rich