diff --git a/Manuscript/sfBSE.tex b/Manuscript/sfBSE.tex
index 35c0214..ba07b2c 100644
--- a/Manuscript/sfBSE.tex
+++ b/Manuscript/sfBSE.tex
@@ -762,6 +762,7 @@ In the last panel we have results for BSE calculation with and without spin-flip
 
 \begin{figure*}
 \includegraphics[width=0.49\linewidth]{H2_CIS.pdf}
+\hspace{0.05cm}
 \includegraphics[width=0.49\linewidth]{H2_TDDFT.pdf}
 \includegraphics[width=0.49\linewidth]{H2_BSE_RHF.pdf}
 \caption{
@@ -789,6 +790,9 @@ The $D_{2h}$ and $D_{4h}$ optimized geometries of the $^1 A_g$ and $^3 A_{2g}$ s
 EOM-CCSD and SF-ADC calculations have been taken from Refs.~\onlinecite{Manohar_2008} and Ref.~\onlinecite{Lefrancois_2015}.
 All of them have been obtained with a UHF reference like the SF-BSE calculations performed here.
 
+Table~\ref{tab:CBD_D2h} shows results obtained for the $D_{2h}$ rectangular equilibrium geometry and Table~\ref{tab:CBD_D4h} shows results obtained for $D_{4h}$ square equilibrium geometry. These results are given with respect to the singlet ground state. For each geometry three states are under investigation, for the $D_{2h}$ CBD we look at the $1 ~^3 B_{1g}$, $1~^1 B_{1g}$ and $2 ~^1 A_{1g}$ states. For the $D_{4h}$ CBD we look at the $1 ~^3 A_{2g}$, $2~^1 A_{1g}$ and $1 ~^1 B_{2g}$ states. Several methods using spin-flip are compared to the spin-flip version of BSE with and without dynamical corrections. In Table~\ref{tab:CBD_D2h}, comparing the results of our work and the most accurate ADC level, i.e., SF-ADC(3) with SF-BSE@{\GOWO} we have a difference in the excitation energy of 0.017 eV for the $1 ~^3 B_{1g}$ state. This difference grows to 0.572 eV for the $1 ~^1 B_{1g}$ state and then it is 0.212 eV for the $2 ~^1 A_{1g}$ state. Adding dynamical corrections in SF-dBSE@{\GOWO} do not improve the accuracy of the excitation energies comparing to SF-ADC(3). Indeed, we have a difference of 0.052 eV for the $1 ~^3 B_{1g}$ state, 0.393 eV for the $1 ~^1 B_{1g}$ state and 0.293 eV for the $2 ~^1 A_{1g}$ state.
+Now, looking at the Table~\ref{tab:CBD_D4h} and comparing SF-BSE@{\GOWO} to SF-ADC(3) we have an interesting result. Indeed, we have a wrong ordering in our first excited state, we find that the triplet state $1 ~^3 A_{2g}$ is lower in energy that the singlet state $B_{1g}$ in contrary to all of the results extracted in Refs.~\onlinecite{Manohar_2008} and Ref.~\onlinecite{Lefrancois_2015}. Then adding dynamical corrections in SF-dBSE@{\GOWO} not only improve the difference of excitation energies with SF-ADC(3) it gives the right ordering for the first excited state, meaning that we retrieve the triplet state $1 ~^3 A_{2g}$ above the singlet state $B_{1g}$. So here we have an example where the dynamical corrections are necessary to get the right chemistry.
+
 %%% TABLE ?? %%%
 \begin{table}
 	\caption{
@@ -823,7 +827,7 @@ All of them have been obtained with a UHF reference like the SF-BSE calculations
 	\caption{
 	Vertical excitation energies (with respect to the singlet $\text{X}\,{}^1B_{1g}$ ground state) of the $1\,{}^3A_{2g}$, $2\,{}^1A_{1g}$, and $1\,{}^1B_{2g}$ states at the $D_{4h}$ square-planar equilibrium geometry of the $\text{X}\,{}^1B_{1g}$ singlet ground state.
 	All the spin-flip calculations have been performed with a UHF reference.
-	\label{tab:CBD_D2h}}
+	\label{tab:CBD_D4h}}
 	\begin{ruledtabular}
 		\begin{tabular}{lccc}
 									&	\mc{3}{c}{Excitation energies (eV)}	\\
@@ -834,7 +838,7 @@ All of them have been obtained with a UHF reference like the SF-BSE calculations
 			EOM-SF-CCSD\fnm[1]			&	&	&	\\
 			EOM-SF-CCSD(fT)\fnm[1]		&	&	&	\\
 			EOM-SF-CCSD(dT)\fnm[1]		&	&	&	\\
-			SF-ADC(2)-s\fnm[2]			&	&	&	\\
+			SF-ADC(2)-s\fnm[2]			& 0.265	&	1.658& 1.904	\\
 			SF-ADC(2)-x\fnm[2]			&	&	&	\\
 			SF-ADC(3)\fnm[2]			&	&	&	\\
 			SF-BSE@{\GOWO}\fnm[3] 		& -0.049	& 1.189	& 1.480	\\