Based on: http://cdsweb.cern.ch/record/1299853/files/BPH-10-002-paper-v3.pdf

1) l14: "historical discrepancy": please rephrase, sounds funny.

2) l51: remove rapidity coverage of muon detector: already descried on line 38

3) l56-57: while interesting piece of information, I don't see how relevant it is that there were 1.6 collisions per crossing.

4) l58: "good quality data" is not immediately clear, would suggest to replace with something like "Tracker, the Muon and the luminosity measurement detectors were fully operational".

5) l61: "without any further processing" sounds unclear as to what processing you are referring to. Add a statement about HLT passthrough.

6) line 67: remove "also".

7) l68-74: as a non-expert, it is not clear to me if the MC generators listed here have all the improvements listed on lines 15-19. It would be nice to clarify.

8) l84: define "central" and "forward" in terms of (pseudo)rapidity.

9) l91: would recommend changing "cuts are applied…" to e.g.: "To reduce backgrounds from fake muons …, muon tracks are required to pass the following requirements".

10) l92: I guess it is at least two tracks in the pixel layer, not exactly two?

11) l101: Which mass distributions were used in the fit? I imagine the inclusion of J/Psi into this fit could bias the cross-section measurement? Please clarify how the correction is made, and why/how it does not cause a bias.

12) l144-147: not clear the choice of polarization for non-prompt. Could you please clarify a bit why usage of babar measurement is directly transferable here, and how the comparison of that with EvtGen is a proper evaluation of systematic? What are the settings used in EvtGen?

13) l150, 175 and 181: What values do you assign to these uncertainties?

14) l153: You need to rephrase this sentence: different implies a comparison with something, while there is none here. Would suggest dropping the first sentence, and rephrase the second sentence a little bit.

15) l161: can you motivate the choice of 20%? Maybe a reference?

16) l185: I guess it needs to be "eff_off_track is the muon identification efficiency".

17) l190: "mapped" sounds strange, you have "parameterized" the efficiency.

18) l195: "The efficiency for the "->"The efficiency of the requirement for the…"

19) l199: a bias on which distribution? Eta, Pt? If this is a feature of the method, how come it is not present in MC, allowing you to study it? Can you have derived the corrections from data?

20) l229-232: how are these systematic uncertainties used in the analysis? Do they enter the cross-section measurement? please clarify in text.

21) l330-339: can you give at least a qualitative interpretation of the differences observed in different MC models, e.g. Pythia give a significantly different prediction for the prompt J/Psi's, while for non-prompt it is not so different (at least at high Pt). What could be causing this?