for the NIKHEF wave function is too narrow to fit the $1p$ data well. However, the $1s$ data remain well above all of the calculations for large $p_m$. Lapikás [[*et al.* ]{}]{}[@Lapikas00] attributed this problem to $1p$ contamination due to inadequate radiative unfolding.

![EMA-noSV calculations for $^{12}$C$(e,e^\prime p)$ are compared with quasiperpendicular data for $T_p = 87$ MeV from Saclay . Solid, dashed, and dash-dotted curves are based upon NLSH, HS, and NIKHEF wave functions, respectively. []{data-label="EMA:Saclay_kin2"}](emanosv_saclay_kin2.ps){width="3.0in"}

![EMA-noSV calculations for $^{12}$C$(e,e^\prime p)$ are compared with quasiperpendicular data for $T_p = 99$ MeV from Saclay . Solid, dashed, and dash-dotted curves are based upon NLSH, HS, and NIKHEF wave functions, respectively. []{data-label="EMA:Saclay_kin1"}](emanosv_saclay_kin1.ps){width="3.0in"}

![EMA-noSV calculations for $^{12}$C$(e,e^\prime p)$ are compared with quasiperpendicular data for $Q^2 = 0.29$ (GeV/$c$)$^2$ from Tokyo . []{data-label="EMA:Tokyo"}](emanosv_tokyo_sigred1.ps){width="2.5in"}

![EMA-noSV calculations for $^{12}$C$(e,e^\prime p)$ are compared with quasiperpendicular data for $Q^2 = 1.1$ (GeV/$c$)$^2$ from SLAC . Solid, dashed, and dash-dotted curves are based upon NLSH, HS, and NIKHEF wave functions, respectively. []{data-label="EMA:SLAC"}](emanosv_slac.ps){width="2.5in"}

The normalization factors obtained for single-component EMA-noSV fits are listed in Table \[table:normperp\_EMAnoSV\]; improved two-component RDWIA fits will be presented in the next section. The Tokyo result is omitted because the $1s$ admixture is appreciable. We 