Moreover, talking about that specific part of the detectors such early in the article is also misleading: the calorimeter at issue in the official announcement belongs to one specific detector, of one specific experiment, that is, CDF: it doesn't make sense to talk about "Fermilab's calorimeter" such generically, as if Fermilab had only one as a lab, like Wilson Hall. It would be more correct, still unnecessary per my first message, to talk about calorimeters, plural, thus referring also to DZero earlier results.
I'm not saying it doesn't make sense. Of course it does. I don't need any special explanation from you, thanks. I'm arguing that I don't see what it is adding to the announcement, which specific message it gets across? After all, if the term of art is not used in the official announcement and the specific role of this piece of apparatus is not explained in the article, neither is used in the article to explain something else, to me it's use seems pointless almost by definition.
Frankly, from the journalistic point of view, I don't see what's the point of talking about the "Digital Hadron Calorimeter" at the beginning of the news, a term of art not mentioned anywhere in the official announcement, neither explained in the rest of the article, neither pointing to something really new about the last results...
"The damage done in what CERN calls the 'S34 Incident' (and what other people call a major explosion in the cryogenics system)..." If that way of beginning the story was supposed to be funny, didn't work at all for me.