  In a recent article by Rodrigues et al. [1] eta photo-nuclear data taken by
Browman et al. [2] in 1974 were refit as a means to extract the eta->gamma
gamma decay width. The key assertion in the author's analysis is attributing
backgrounds in the eta angular distribution to nuclear incoherent production
only. We disagree with this assertion and question the validity of the fitting
procedure utilized in [1]. A reanalysis of the Cornell Primakoff data requires
a detailed understanding of the hadronic and accidental backgrounds in the
data, and the authors of [1] have not accomplished this task. [1] T. E.
Rodrigues et al., Phys. Rev. Lett., 101, 012301 (2008). [2] A. Browman et al.,
Phys. Rev. Lett. 32, 1067 (1974).
