[*]
type A: 
line 47-49: Second part of the sentence does not seem gramatically correct. Either state “the right two diagrams show ….”, or end the previous sentence at the comma and start a new sentence “The right two diagrams do not add to the Wg fusion and are small QED corrections”
line 68: “and the corresponding cross section is twice as large as the cross section of the dimuon and dielectron channels” (or similar - in any case the cross section cannot be twice as large as another channel)
line 70-73: this is a very long sentence with many commas. Consider splitting this up for readability.
line 82-83: “…that is consistent with a W(qq) decay products merged in a single jet” -> “… that is consistent with a W(qq) decay where the decay products are merged in a single jet” (or similar)
line 85: Avoid comments in brackets, why not simply make this statement as a separate sentence?
line 298: Can the comment in brackets be incorporated in the sentence? in any case ‘the results using a=4 were found to give the consistent results’ should be something like ‘Consistent results were found when using a=4’

type B:
Abstract: "Upper limits are set, in the context of a Type I seesaw mechanism, on the cross section times branching fraction for production of a heavy Majorana neutrino in the mass range between 20 and 1600 GeV. “ only upper limits on the mixing matrix elements are quoted in the results section, so perhaps drop the comment that limits are set on xs x BR?
line 45: The text states “ in this study… is considered”. Is this in addition to the process depicted in Fig 2, or does Fig 2 have nothing to do with the state that is probed with this analysis? 
line 348-349: This reads as if the fit in the CR was performed independently of the SR fits later on. Is this the case? If not please make it clear that a simultaneous fit of CR and SRs was performed. If this is not the case, why was the CR not included in a simultaneous fit with the SRs?
line 350-356: same comment as above, why not include the CR in a simultaneous fit with the SRs? If we trust the control region is defined correctly, we should be able to trust the constraint from the fit there and do not need to apply uncertainties on the simulated sample cross section. In addition, if a correction is in order then that correction needs to be applied, one cannot simply assing an uncertainty. Is there a reason the correction was not applied?
line 406: I don’t understand what is meant by ‘MC simulation CRs in data’ - would it be possible to clarify this?
line 492: An 88% uncertainty is very large. How come it is so large?
line 502-505: by stating that the uncertainty of 50% is conservative, the impession is given that the number of 50% is not well-motivated. Can a better motivation be given for this large uncertainty?
figs 6-7: Maybe it should be made clearer that a specific optimisation is performed for each mass point, and that therefore the observed yields can vary within what is labelled the same SR. This confused me for a while.