I Introduction

33 strike 'the full 2010 data sample' -- lumi is the interesting bit now.

II The ATLAS Detector

III Data and Online Event Selection

139 The use of online and on-line is not consistent. It is also imprecise
to say online - it should be defined in terms of the algorithms
and corrections in the introduction. Similarly for offline.
Saying selected "online" is just saying triggered?

IV SIMULATED EVENT SAMPLES

212 Is the min bias here matched to what was measured (by Glasgow?!)

V Off-line Event Analysis

Fig 2: data points that are zero should not be shown.

B. Missing Tranverse Energy and %$ M_T $%

C. Wenu

366 How bad is the reliability of the simulation of a lepton as a jet.
Or do we just expect this?

372-381 Confusing as to what is actually changed. Perhaps the cuts should
just be given in a table.
Fig 4: This one has a supressed zero but Fig 2 does not.
The qcd distributions are not smooth and should either be
smoothed (interpolate with sys on interpolation) or discarded
with some upper limit for sys.

D. Wmunu

E. Detector level comparisons

544 The discrepancies are within systematic are they?

549 The sentence should perhaps be "The predicted ttbar cross section
of 165+11-16 is used instead of the less well determined but
consistent value of 171+-...

Fig 7: The last point in the first jet pt for miuons is ok for electrons
but disagrees in muons because of a spuriously weighted event in the
highest bin!

Up to this point the cuts for MET were released. What cuts are used
for this figure compare to the ones used in making the templates?

The pt is not uncorrected -- it is corrected for detector effects
but not to parton level. This is a confusion throughout the paper
and one cannot be sure when looking at a plot what the real pt
definition is. In fact the utility for background computations is
limited by the fact that any physics measurement in top or Higgs
will use a reconstructed parton correction. Here the step is
to do a comparison with MC but distributions for the corrected
parton are useful. It is also confusing what JES correction is applied.

F. Unfolding

611 Why would electrons need such a huge correction?

F. Overall Systematics

Fig 17: is this a linear or quadratic sum of the other systematics? It should
say "linear" sum or "quadratic" sum

Fig 18: The "no pythia" should be on this one and appears on others.
Also the tick marks don't appear all thetime on all points.
This is true of many figures.

Fig 19: Was the ratio figure left out?

Fig 20: Odd statistical issue in Blackhat-Sherpa for the first bin. Either
need to rerun or remove the point but of course it is odd not to
have all points matching data...

VII Cross section results

869 Would be good to reflect these conclusions in the abstract.

Fig 26: In spite of what the abstract says, sherpa is very poor here

Appendix A

Should show us the QCD templates again as well. They had
some odd features statistically that misled us to interpret
some of the extremes of distributions.

COMMENTS Relevant to Glasgow but not for authors

134 What jet pt do we use in ttH, WH and ttbar? Is the 20 and 30 relevant?
They dont correct back to parton but "unfold". How does that impact us?

228 Beam spot is 60mm in Z and resolution in Z is 0.1mm

238 When we do the R stuff, will we have to recalibrate it all?

247 Note use of y not eta

312 How well matched to the MET and Mt cuts are we?

313 and on : We should think about Soft lepton tags

371 Is the definition of fake e different here and in top or what we do?
What they did is not clear but they do relax E/p and overall do a isolation
relaxation.

371 Note that they get shapes from the data and then fit met.

480 For fake mu they use the impact parameter.

499-504 They make a pythia dijet sample to look for a muon. Has any
work been done in atlas to try to identify b,c,light in jets?

505 Note the difference in the QCD for mu and e. We should make sure
we keep them separate as they clearly had stuff leaking into distributions
and that was really an artefact of the stats for the estimates.
Hence e and mu are different in pots in fig 6/7

561 By the time we use 1fb or 2fb the consitency of the kinematic distributions
may be a new issue.

500-600 How does the QCD estimate here compare to the top algorithm for QCD
estimates.

Fig 7 and onwards are untagged - this is useful but we will need to see flavor
tagged as well.

584 Final state QED differs for e and mu so again we need to do separately

599 What do they do really ? how does it compare to what we need?

637 Uncertainties for where we start on ttH are HUGE: 30% compared to 2%
for 0 jet. Also for ttbar? But we know ttbar.

652 Interesting to see the quark/gluon difference in calorimeter response.
D0 claims that CDF's 2j bump in w+j is due to this being done incorrectly

670 Note that the full analysis is repeated for the systematics. We need
to make a to-do list for the systematics from this section and see if
it agrees with what we have for our current todo list -- if we have one.