Comment on the interpretation of the -3.3- and -2.8-eV features observed by Eberhardt and Plummer in Ni(001) photoemission

We point out that Eberhardt and Plummer made a group-theoretical error in their interpretation of the feature they observed at -3.3 eV in their angle-resolved photoemission data from Ni(001). It cannot be due to a transition from an $X_1$ initial state into an $X_5^{\prime }$ final state as they have claimed. We also point out that the -2.8-eV feature they ascribe to an $X_3$ to $X_5^{\prime }$ transition can just as easily be interpreted to occur at $W$. These questions are important because of the controversy over the $d$-band width in nickel.