The draft document may be found at this URL:

<http://cdsweb.cern.ch/record/1407206>

It is version no. 1 entitled: 'Search for pair-produced heavy quarks decaying to Wq in the two-lepton channel at ATLAS at sqrt(s) = 7 TeV' Additional ATLAS internal supportive material can be found at:

http://cdsweb.cern.ch/record/1377888 .

Please enter comments on this twiki or email to me (Sarah.Allwood-Spiers@glasgow.ac.uk) before Friday 30th December - if you have any comments after that date please put them in CDS yourself (the deadline is 5th January).

Comments:

153: Should define Ical here rather than citing reference[29].

195: This implies that 2 leptons with the same flavour can share a track in the inner detector - is that right?

211: add a comma after 101GeV maybe: "a window of 81GeV -101GeV, around the Z boson mass" (it is 10GeV around the Z boson mass, which is a window 81-101GeV).

Figure 4: in the key the caption for the line is obscured bvy data points.

Figure 10: on the y axis label, sigma should be $\sigma$

- General comment about references: the authors tend to use only the arXiv citatons, even in cases where there is a published paper with a journal reference. Please review these cases and give priority to the journal references.

- Specific comments:

l7: ref. 2 -> is there a journal reference instead of just arXiv? Is it intended to be the Herwig6.5 release note? (if so, the authorship needs to be fixed)

l11: ref. 3 -> again, is there a journal reference? At least a mention to which journal it has been submitted to?

l28-30: comment about taus -> sounds a bit vague...it is not clear whether you will add taus to analysis...the comment is vague in its current formulation. I mean, if taus “are able to contribute” why are they not included?

l92: ref. 8 -> shouldn’t it be from 2005 (which is v2) and not 2002?

ref. 9 -> this has got a journal reference: JHEP 0101:010, 2001. Please check.

ref. 10 -> the year 1996 appears twice. Remove one of them.

l109: ref. 14 -> use journal reference (JHEP 05 (2006) 026).

refs. 15 and 16 -> again use journal reference (both have been published!).

Fig. 2 (and several other figs.) -> is it really necessary to include the overflow bin?

l204: why are we not including jets at larger pseudorapidities?

Conclusions / Discussion: would it be possible to add a couple of comments on how this study could be improved by adding more data or better understanding the backgrounds (for example)?

signal is nnlo and big is nlo. is it normal ?
tt cross section should be measured, why was not used the measured value ?
(29) is not a reference, it should be a footnote.
track isolation not well explained
175 to 183 is obscure and should be rephrased.
190 not clear in text how dilepton selection validates missing energy and jets. it will probably be clear in the accompanying material, but the reader has 45%probability of not being able to reach it (e.g. a CMS collaborator ).
196 why do we allow 2 minor 2 electrons to share a track in the ID ? this must happen not very often anyhow.
why there is no et cut for the e-mu channel.
why there is no Ht cut in the same flavour channels.

looking at table V I am surprised that we can tell anything at MQ =350, as the presence of a signal can not be excluded there. as the analysis is binned by design, I find it difficult to start excluding from a bin where the data is compatible with being signal+background...



---

-- SarahAllwood - 2011-12-21