Comments to EW WZ paper:
------------------------

General: Very nice introduction. Some later parts tedious to read (unavoidable?)

Section 3: Data and MC samples.
 - The labels LO, NLO and NNLO are used extensively throughout this section,
   but they often mean different things, which can be very confusing.
   E.g., lines, 79, 90: 'simulated at LO ... with MADGRPH5_AMC@NLO'
   presumably means that the electroweak part has been simulated at LO,
   while the QCD part has been simulated at NLO?
   -> In general, clearly specify for each "XLO" label whether you refer
      to EW or to QCD.
 - line 84: 'Contributions with an initial state b quark are not included'
   Weird, why not?
   Please motivate.
 - line 96 'the interference bewteen EW WZ and QCD WZ production ...'
   Not obvious what should interfere here.
   The graphs (a) and (b) shown in Fig. 1 certainly do not interfere.
   Please give the reader an idea about the graphs which do interfere
   (citation?)
 - line 110:
   'calculated at NNLO for qqbar to ZZ ... and at NLO for gg->ZZ'
   This does not make sense. A qqbar initial state at NNLO (NNLO PDFS)
   means something different than a qqbar initial state at NLO (NLO PDFS).
   So here the two generated samples are not complementary to each other,
   since qqbar at NNLO is not complementary to gg at NLO.
   Furthermore, it is not stated what happens to the qg contribution,
   which is nonzero at NLO QCD (qg -> qqqbar -> qZ).
   Similarly, generating qqbar -> ZZ at NLO with POWHEG and gg->at LO
   with MCFM does not make sense (unless 'NLO' and 'LO' refer to the same
   order in alphas, and NLO PDFs are used in both cases). Again, what
   happens to the qg initial state, which contributes at NLO QCD?
   For a full nonoverlapping simulation all contributions have to be taken
   from the same order PDFs, with nonoverlapping matrix elements.
   The clean solution here would be to take everything from NLO QCD.

Section 5:
 - line 204: "no b tagged jet with pT>30 GeV and |eta|<4.7"
   Can we do b tagging up to |eta|=4.7 ?
   Very misleading. Quote the actual btag range (2.4?) instead?
 - caption of table 1:
   "hadronized events" -> "hadronised simulated events"
 - content of table 1: is >20, >20 in the first two lines of the
   "loose fiducial" really intentional, or is it a typo?
   One can do this, but it is not obvious from the context why one would.
   If not a typo, specify why? (maybe compatibility with some external
   prediction?)

Section 6:
 - line 'the Z gamma process ...'
   You presumably mean 'the Z gamma(*) process'?
   I had to reread this sentence several times before I understood its
   intended meaning.