TYPE B:
--------

Abstract:
- 2nd but last line: "The suppression is more pronounced in the region
  of backward rapidity" --> It seems that this is the only place in
  the paper where this is mentioned, while later the conclusion is,
  e.g. l.236 "remains below unity independently of rapidity" although
  one can see clearly a trend of larger suppression in the backward
  region in Fig.4 top left. Make up your mind.


1 Introduction:
- l.10 "Confirming the relevance of such analyses for the understanding..."
  This sounds vague/undefined

- l.27 "A significant suppression .. has been observed at forward.., while
  no strong nuclear effect are reported at backwared rapidity (Pb direction).."
  One would expect that somewhere later in the paper one would come back to this
  but it doesn't seem so (?)

- l.15-l.42 I find the whole picture of suppression effects and possible explanations
  given in the introduction a bit confusing and hard to follow. 

3 Event selection

- l.77 "In the pp sample, psi(2S) mesons are reconstructed within |y_CM|<2.4.
  This statement looks a bit isolated here and what about the pPb collisions?

- Eq. (1) -->at eta_lab = 2.1 the pt cuts in rows 2 and 3 don't match,
  why is this so?

4 Yield extraction

- l.102 "The CB and Gaussian functions have independent widths, ... to accommodate
  the dependence of the dimuon invariant mass resolution inside the analysis bins"
  ??? This is unclear, what do the two widths have to do with the dependence
  inside analysis bins? 

- l.106 that the mass peak position for Ksi(2s) is scaled by the ratio is clear
  but is the detector width scaling linearly?

- l.110 what do you mean by constrained to the range [0.8,3]?
  Is this the boundary setting in MINUIT? One wouldn't call it 
  constrained but bounded then and better explain in the text
  that this MINUIT option was used.. It is known that this
  can be dangerous, in particular when a parameter hits the boundary,
  the error calculation one cannot trust.
  Does this happen that the parameter hits the boundary?

- l.113 Do you have a reference for the log-likelihood ratio (LLR) test?

- General question on the fitting: what are the correlations between
  different fit parameters (this is a standard output from Minuit),
  I hope they are small.. if correlations are above 90% one might
  run into problems.

- l.125 at this point it is not really clear what simulation (generator)
  is used to subtract the non-prompt contribution. Later in l.132 you
  introduce PYTHIA but you do not say if it is used also for the non-prompt
  contribution (???)

- Fig.1 what are the fitted relative fractions of G and CB?
  worthwhile to mention in the text?

- Fig.1 have you performed Goodness-of-Fit tests? E.g. what are the chi2/ndf
  values? Would be good to make a qualitative statement in the paper text
  on the typical fit qualities.

5 Acceptance and Efficiency corrections

- l.134 the extra boosting by +-0.465 seems to be a technical thing here.. is it not
  possible to use the proper beam energies in PYTHIA?

6 Systematic uncertainties

- l.156 "changing the fitting constraints" this sounds a bit sloppy.

- l.155-162 the variations with freeing a parameter but bounding it
  to regions (e.g. 1-5) make me really nervous. How often do parameters
  hit the boundaries? How large are typical chi2 changes for the applied
  variations?

- l.179-181 There are nonprompt contaminations, so taking 
  the variation without a correction for the systematics seems not 
  a good variation, e.g. why not do a +-50% variation around the
  nominal subtraction (or factor 2 and 0.5).???

7 Results

- eq.4: Have you considered unfolding to correct for bin-to-bin migrations?

- Fig.2: Can't really see any error bars

- Fig.2. "The fully correlated global uncertainty of 3.5% is not included..."
  mmh, aren't there a couple of fully correlated uncertainties? Should
  you specify that it's about lumi?

- l.207 is it really consistent with unity? p-value?

- l.224 "which does not yet predict the pt dependence of charmonium suppression"
  which dependence, where was this discussed?

- Fig.4: are there cancellations of correlated systematic uncertainties
  for the R observables (it's a ratio of systematically correlated results, right?)

- Fig.4: J/Psi(1s) should be also mentioned in the caption.

- l.237 "Independently of rapidity"
  Doubt it, it looks like it is stronger suppressed in the backward region.