========= 
Notes from TT on abstract and section 1 of PDF (version as sent on 4 Nov):

Please note:

1. most points are my proposals only..
2. NNE == not native English (checked with `OxBridge' educated native
speaking Particle Physicist :-)
3. corrections below are CAPITALISED when just single characters or an
additional word.


Abstract, lines
---------------

*2: `for THE next few'
*7: `methodS' or perhaps, if you prefer, `using BOTH THE scan and THE
radiative return method' 
*8: `are overviewed' is NNE. `are summarised' or maybe `An overview of
... is given.'

Introduction
------------

*2,L,1,1: delete `the' before `Standard Model'

*2,L, last line: the constant is a constant (in the Lagrangian) and
doesn't run. If the running is implied, better call it `coupling' or
`effective QED coupling $\alpha(q^2)$' or something similar. As
the typical precision tests of the SM (not of QED) need alpha(M_Z) I propose: 
`parameters is the QED coupling $\alpha(q^2)$ which ... scale. Its
value in the limit of zero momentum transfer, the fine structure
constant $\alpha$, has been determined with an impressive...' 

*2,R,1,9: wrt the Refs for delta alpha(M_Z), shouldn't we also cite one
of the earlier works by BP, e.g. our Ref. [557]?

*2,R,below (1): `is the INCLUSIVE total cross'? and `.. hadronic stateS.'

*next line: `dispersion' instead of `dispersive'

*2 lines later: `measurementS' and `below A few'

*again 2 lines later: `source OF uncertainty' or better write
`contribution to the uncertainty'

*next line: no comma: `constant (recent evaluations .. ) AND is
becoming a limiting factor FOR the effective' or `factor in the
determination of the effective'
and 'and in turn FOR the prediction' or `IN the prediction', not `on'

*2,R,3rd line from bottom: `effective QED coupling at'

*2,R,last line: commas around a_mu ?!


page 3:
-------
*L,above (2): `dispersion'

*(2): better write the prefactors as \frac{}{} to avoid ambiguities with
missing bracketing.
 
*L,below (2): shouldn't we specify the kernel? As defined implicitely
here it contains a factor 1/s which is important for the weighting
towards low energies. $K(s)=\frac{m_{\mu}^2}{3s}\cdot(0.4\ldots 1)$
with the leading $1/s$ behaviour modified by the monotonic increase as
indicated by the bracket where $0.4$ at $s=m_{\pi}^2$ and the limit $1$ at
$s \to \infty$. We could also make the prefactor
$K(s)=\frac{m_{\mu}^2}{3s}$ explicit in the formula (2) so that the
1/s is explicit; then K is just the smooth bracket..

*L,4 lines below (3): `result FROM [21] gives'

*next par: `The difference BETWEEN the experimental average [23],
a_{\mu}^{\rm exp} = ..., AND THE SM PREDICTION is then ...' 

*same line: no comma after `i.e.' 

*end of par: `to match the INCREASED precision of the proposed
 experiments TO MEASURE $a_{\mu}$..' or `FOR the measurement'

*R,2,3: `missing contributions. From this..' make an extra sentence,
 possibly w/out brackets?!

*L,3,1-3: `how important the comparisons of MC generators WITH a
 common set.. cuts ARE.' or nominal style: `By these arguments the
 importance of the comparisons .. WITH.. becomes evident.'

*L,3,5: `key step FOR the'

*L,3,10: `THREE years' (not `3')

*L,4,2-3: `generators, recent progress (..) and REMAINING open
 issues..' better w/out the, no comma for and in a listing (!) (comma only if
 there follows a complete new sentence), possibly add `remaining'?

*L,6: `The report is organised as follows: Section 2, 3 and 4 are
 devoted to ...'

*L,6: comma after `Luminosity'

*L,7: `In Section 5', not 4.


page 4,L,the par about VP:
--------------------------

We are not only treating non-pert. contributions, and certainly gluons
are in the game as well. I propose a rewording of this sentence along
the lines:
`Section 6 discusses vacuum polarisation at low energies, which is a
key ingredient for the .. cross section, focusing on
the description and comparison of available parametrisations. 
Finally, Section 7 contains a brief summary of the report.'

=========