Peer reviews

This draft is well-formed and nicely presented. The formatting is clean and consistent, with well-styled section headings, figure descriptions, and a thorough works-cited. Most claims are backed up with strong evidence and correctly-formatted in-text citations. This paper has an excellent level of detail and stays closely focused on how different geomorphological concepts apply to the Riverside Ave. slides specifically. I was especially compelled by the inclusion of Figure 5, which shows a hydrograph of the Winooski River during the 2019 storm that led to a Riverside landslide. All figure inclusions feel deliberate, and bring something to the paper that the text alone cannot. I do think that the calculation-heavy approach of this paper could make it a bit daunting to a layperson, so the language could be shifted & the authors could include some more simplified descriptions of how their quantitative measures apply to the Riverside Ave. slides. The appendices were also quite helpful—the calculations give strong mathematical support of the qualitative content of the paper, as understandable by a more academic audience.

This paper is generally strong, with clear answers to the assignment questions and helpful in-text reference to figures. The introduction is especially strong, concisely pinning down the content and purpose of the paper for the reader. The paper is slightly over the word limit, which the authors could curb by shifting some of the explanation from plainly written to the figures themselves as well as cutting down the extensive historical landslide chronology. I was glad that this paper included information on more than just the 2019 slide, in contrast to the rest of the papers given how important historical landslide context is to more recent and future landslides. Still, I think they could cut down a little on detail from the historical context in order to incorporate more information about the mechanisms landslides and how they applied to Riverside Ave in particular. The writing is good, but sometimes redundant and could be a bit more concise in parts. The formatting for the article is also general good, including a nice title page, but for some reason the figure descriptions are kind of blurry—just something to fix for the final draft. The citation page also looks correctly formatted with a number of different sources.

This paper answers all of the questions outlined in the assignment, using those prompts as headings. While the authors thoroughly answered each of the questions posed, I think think paper could use some reordering. While the recommendations section is a logical conclusion, introducing the paper with spatial distribution is a bit confusing. Instead, the authors could either provide some glacial history/an introduction of the historical context of slides along Riverside Ave. At the very least, the fact Riverside Ave experiences landslides and the reason it is such a landslide hotspot should proceed details like the science behind their spacial distribution. The abstract is also rather vague, and reads more like an abstract for the Bierman study than an abstract for the paper itself. That being said, I thought the natural v. human induced sections were especially strong. This paper is also slightly over the word count, and could use some reductions. I think it would aid the reader to integrate all of the figures included in the bottom, and demonstrating written points with the in-text figures is a great way to lower word count. I'm also not sure whether the works cited section for this paper is complete, as it only includes the Bierman paper. Still, this paper is well written and a great start!

This paper clearly lays out the history & science behind the Riverside Ave slides with clear, concise writing that keeps it under the word limit. I liked how the authors gave such direct and simplified timelines of the landslides on Riverside—the paper really felt like it was written in a way that someone with no context about Riverside Ave could understand. In contrast to some of the other papers, this one did an excellent job of outlining the basics mechanisms and causes of landslides very briefly and then dedicating most of the space in the paper to direct application of that information to Riverside Ave. I do think the paper would benefit from some subheads to break up the discussion section a bit, as there are clear subsections to the discussion that could be more obviously delineated for the reader. While all paragraphs are quite well written, the paper could use some reordering—maybe the glacial history & hydrology sections could move up before the commentary on human activity and how it connects to the Riverside slides?Assuming the authors used the Bierman paper, it would be good to include that in the works cited. Generally, clearly written & well done!

This paper was generally well written, cohesive and a nice, concise length. In some sections, concept background was general and could use more deliberate application to Riverside Ave, for example, in the 'Landslide Triggers' section. I especially think the Risk Mitigation section could use some expansion—maybe more details on the crib wall check dam and how it would function in this case? I did like the almost chronological approach of beginning with glacial history, though I do think the level of detail on glacial history could be cut down a bit, leaving room to include further details throughout about landslides besides the 2019 event, especially given that the proceeding slides impacted some of the anthropogenic factors that led to the 2019 slide. The paper was generally sectioned well with strong headings; however, there is still some formatting to fix for the figures and in the works cited section. I also think it could strengthen the paper to both use in text citations and reference used materials, as well as using some non-photograph figures. Though photos are interesting, some of the recommended academic references include figures that are quite useful in explaining the geomorphological mechanisms behind landslides. Overall, great start!