diff --git a/Manuscript/G2-srDFT.tex b/Manuscript/G2-srDFT.tex
index 44a8516..6b73bfc 100644
--- a/Manuscript/G2-srDFT.tex
+++ b/Manuscript/G2-srDFT.tex
@@ -139,7 +139,7 @@ We report a universal density-based basis set incompleteness correction that can
 The present correction, which appropriately vanishes in the complete basis set (CBS) limit, relies on short-range correlation density functionals (with multi-determinant reference) from range-separated density-functional theory (RS-DFT) to estimate the basis set incompleteness error.
 Contrary to conventional RS-DFT schemes which require an \textit{ad hoc} range-separation \textit{parameter} $\mu$, the key ingredient here is a range-separation \textit{function} $\mu(\bf{r})$ which automatically adapts to the spatial non-homogeneity of the basis set incompleteness error.
 As illustrative examples, we show how this density-based correction allows us to obtain CCSD(T) correlation energies near the CBS limit for the G2-1 set of molecules with compact Gaussian basis sets. 
-For example, while CCSD(T)/cc-pVTZ yields a mean absolute deviation (MAD) of 6.06 kcal/mol compared to CCSD(T)/CBS atomization energies, the CCSD(T)+LDA and CCSD(T)+PBE corrected methods return MAD of 1.19 and 0.85 kcal/mol (respectively) with the same basis. 
+\titou{For example, while CCSD(T)/cc-pVTZ yields a mean absolute deviation (MAD) of 6.06 kcal/mol compared to CCSD(T)/CBS atomization energies, the CCSD(T)+LDA and CCSD(T)+PBE corrected methods return MAD of 1.19 and 0.85 kcal/mol (respectively) with the same basis.}
 \end{abstract}
 
 \maketitle
@@ -152,8 +152,8 @@ Although both spring from the same Schr\"odinger equation, each of these philoso
 
 WFT is attractive as it exists a well-defined path for systematic improvement as well as powerful tools, such as perturbation theory, to guide the development of new attractive WFT \textit{ans\"atze}.
 The coupled cluster (CC) family of methods is a typical example of the WFT philosophy and is well regarded as the gold standard of quantum chemistry for weakly correlated systems. 
-By increasing the excitation degree of the CC expansion, one can systematically converge, for a given basis set, to the exact, full configuration interaction (FCI) limit, although the computational cost associated with such improvement is usually pricey.
-One of the most fundamental drawback of conventional WFT methods is the slow convergence of energies and properties with respect to the size of the one-electron basis set.
+By increasing the excitation degree of the CC expansion, one can systematically converge, for a given basis set, to the exact, full configuration interaction (FCI) limit, although the computational cost associated with such improvement is usually high.
+One of the most fundamental drawbacks of conventional WFT methods is the slow convergence of energies and properties with respect to the size of the one-electron basis set.
 This undesirable feature was put into light by Kutzelnigg more than thirty years ago. \cite{Kut-TCA-85}
 To palliate this, following Hylleraas' footsteps, \cite{Hyl-ZP-29} Kutzelnigg proposed to introduce explicitly the interelectronic distance $r_{12} = \abs{\br{1} - \br{2}}$ to properly describe the electronic wave function around the coalescence of two electrons. \cite{Kut-TCA-85, KutKlo-JCP-91, NogKut-JCP-94}
 The resulting F12 methods yields a prominent improvement of the energy convergence, and achieve chemical accuracy for small organic molecules with relatively small Gaussian basis sets. \cite{Ten-TCA-12, TenNog-WIREs-12, HatKloKohTew-CR-12, KonBisVal-CR-12}
@@ -214,9 +214,9 @@ Importantly, in the limit of a complete basis set (which we refer to as $\Bas \t
 \end{equation}
 where  $\E{\modY}{}$ is the energy associated with the method $\modY$ in the complete basis set.
 In the case $\modY = \FCI$, we have a strict equality as $\E{\FCI}{} = \E{}{}$.
-Provided that the functional $\bE{}{\Bas}[\n{}{}]$ is known exactly, the only source of error at this stage lies in the potential approximate nature of the methods $\modY$ and $\modZ$ for the FCI energy and density within $\Bas$, respectively.
+Provided that the functional $\bE{}{\Bas}[\n{}{}]$ is known exactly, the only source of error at this stage lies in the potential approximate nature of the methods $\modY$ and $\modZ$.% for the FCI energy and density within $\Bas$, respectively.
 
-Rigorously speaking,  the functional $\bE{}{\Bas}[\n{}{}]$ is obviously \textit{not} universal as it depends on $\Bas$. 
+The functional $\bE{}{\Bas}[\n{}{}]$ is obviously \textit{not} universal as it depends on $\Bas$. 
 Moreover, as $\bE{}{\Bas}[\n{}{}]$ aims at fixing the incompleteness of $\Bas$, its main role is to correct 
 for the lack of cusp in $\wf{}{\Bas}$ (i.e.~a discontinuous derivative) at the e-e coalescence points, a universal condition of exact wave functions. 
 Because the e-e cusp originates from the divergence of the Coulomb operator at $r_{12} = 0$, a cuspless wave function could equivalently originate from a Hamiltonian with a non-divergent Coulomb interaction at $r_{12} = 0$. 
@@ -247,7 +247,7 @@ where
 	\n{2}{}(\br{1},\br{2})
 	= \sum_{pqrs \in \Bas}  \SO{p}{1} \SO{q}{2} \Gam{pq}{rs} \SO{r}{1} \SO{s}{2},
 \end{equation}
-and $\Gam{pq}{rs} = \mel*{\wf{}{\Bas}}{ \aic{r}\aic{s}\ai{p}\ai{q} }{\wf{}{\Bas}}$ are the opposite-spin pair density and density tensor (respectively) associated with $\wf{}{\Bas}$, $\SO{p}{}$ is a spinorbital,
+and $\Gam{pq}{rs} = \mel*{\wf{}{\Bas}}{ \aic{r}\aic{s}\ai{p}\ai{q} }{\wf{}{\Bas}}$ are the opposite-spin pair density associated with $\wf{}{\Bas}$ and its corresponding tensor (respectively), $\SO{p}{}$ is a spinorbital,
 \begin{equation}
 	\label{eq:fbasis}
 	\f{\Bas}{}(\br{1},\br{2}) 
@@ -265,7 +265,7 @@ Because Eq.~\eqref{eq:int_eq_wee} can be rewritten as
   \iint r_{12}^{-1} \n{2}{}(\br{1},\br{2}) \dbr{1} \dbr{2} =  \iint \W{\Bas}{}(\br{1},\br{2}) \n{2}{}(\br{1},\br{2}) \dbr{1} \dbr{2},
 \end{equation}
 it intuitively motivates $\W{\Bas}{}(\br{1},\br{2})$ as a potential candidate for an effective interaction.
-Note that the divergence condition of $\W{\Bas}{}(\br{1},\br{2})$ in Eq.~\eqref{eq:def_weebasis} ensures that one-electron systems are free of correction as the present approach must only correct the two-electron part of the basis set incompleteness error.
+Note that the divergence condition of $\W{\Bas}{}(\br{1},\br{2})$ in Eq.~\eqref{eq:def_weebasis} ensures that one-electron systems are free of correction as the present approach must only correct the basis set incompleteness error originates from the e-e cusp.
 A one-electron correction is currently under active development.
 
 As already discussed in Ref.~\onlinecite{GinPraFerAssSavTou-JCP-18}, $\W{\Bas}{}(\br{1},\br{2})$ is symmetric, \textit{a priori} non translational, nor rotational invariant if $\Bas$ does not have such symmetries.