Edited paper: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Z3YUxBsajiBmPQp29n5gvHbxg6WOr3JN/view?usp=sharing
This paper was very well done. Some sentences could be written more concisely to reduce redundancy. The figures are good and well incorporated and referenced in the text. I like the use of historical photographs in figure 3 and figure 4 is a great visual. Figure 1 could include a key for what the colors represent. The organization of each different section is very clear. I think the rhetoric and writing styles is fairly consistent throughout the text. I’d say Glacial History is the only section that is a bit of an outlier for me, the writing seems different than the other sections. For the conclusion, maybe better techniques for reconstruction in the event of a landslide could be mentioned, not necessarily for the sake and survival of the roads and buildings but maybe some attention to the failed slope, like efforts to compact the fill or implementation of large boulders. In the abstract, there is mention of climate change threatening to increase landslide likelihood because of increase precipitation events but I did not read that mentioned elsewhere in the paper. Perhaps that should be omitted from the abstract or climate change could be briefly mentioned in the paper. Also, I feel that the first three sentences of the conclusion could maybe fit better earlier on in the paper - perhaps in the hydrology section. Overall, this paper was well written, organized, and informative.
Edited paper: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1H6p4fbJgakh_BVjpIcrtr3vDkM092-Tz/view?usp=sharing
I think the subheadings could be made bold or underline, or some more distinction between the text. For figure 1, the map of the US could be smaller and the shaded relief map of the area of concern could be larger. The background section is very informative and portrays the timeline very well. The writing is very narrative and descriptive, but may be using a significant amount of words that could be detracting from the more scientific research. Figure 4 is effective in showing the increase in urbanization. Figure 5 is useful but a bit small and hard to read. I think figure 7 could be a bit clearer in how it is relevant, or might just not be necessary. For the description of the terms in the equations (case study section) they are very short sentence and don’t look quite right. Maybe above, to the right of the equations, there could be something like a key with that information rather than in paragraph form. There is a lot of good information in this paper. All of the questions seem to be well addressed. It is quite over the word count maximum but I think that theres some extraneous detail that could be omitted. Good use of figures, the photographs are effective and illustrate the changes to the land.
Edited paper: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1FYiUUvrov6ceHwAQq0Arspn5koPsWvub/view?usp=sharing
I think the writing style could be more scientific and eloquent. For the first paragraph of the discussion, more emphasis could be put on the underlying factors - rainfall events are the trigger for landslides but I think the impact of the underlying factor should be of more concern. Combined/combination is used several times and I think could be substituted with a different word a few times. The first paragraph on the third page discusses decrease in slope stability, increase in driving shear stress, and changing slope saturation - I think these changes could be better explained, e.g. changing slope saturation due to rainfall events or abandoned buried culverts. Discussion of the model in the first paragraph may be better suited later in the paper, after each factor is explained more. Figures 1-3 and 5 are not referenced in text. For figure 6, it says we see a stream channel running under Riverside Ave, but in the figure it is not necessarily clear what we are seeing - is Riverside Ave in yellow? The overall content is good but could be arranged in a more effective way. Some sentences are bit redundant. A few times through out the paper there was mention of factors but not much explanation of why or how. The last paragraph is the first mention of how the removal of trees impacts the slope stability - could be elaborated on earlier in the paper.
Edited paper: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1w8nc88rhLpEDvJzA3x5j9nCs7jIg-oBn/view?usp=sharing
The Landslide Triggers section describes the factors quite well. I like how it is included early on to help the reader understand the mechanisms of landslides. The figures could be better referenced in text. The glacial history figure are good visuals but could have more relevancy. More figures of the landslides could be included. I think that this paper does a good job at explaining the issues and how they work to encourage landslides. The voice of the paper is pretty consistent. At one point the area is referred to the south side of Winooski River and then the north side of Riverside Avenue, which are saying the same thing but may be more successful to only use one description. I like the mitigation ideas, they were very original. I think the organization of each section is clear and concise. I thought Landslide Triggers and Causes of Landslides may be a bit redundant but I think that there was enough variety and distinction of content. Impervious surfaces also can cause an increase in the velocity of runoff - may be worth mentioning. I am not sure what the word count is, but I would imagine it is not far exceeding the maximum amount of words. I think this paper is well organized, the information is clear, there is a good flow. I think the formatting of the paper could be cleaned up.
Edited paper: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1NgZ60DPJvQU_8cWdJsGBZPFT9IfQoQOQ/view?usp=sharing
The introduction paragraph starts off with a lot of “and then”, “later” and “due to”. In the background on landslides section, I found it to be confusing at first when describing the shear strength as the main resistant for again gravity, the main driving force. I think that it could be said more succinctly, what is the driving force and what is the resisting force. The figures could be better related to the text, but overall there is a good variety of figures and illustrations. The writing could be a bit clearer, some sentences are a bit confusing because of the order - for example, “This shear strength acts as the main resistance force against gravity, which is the main driving force.” might be better “..force against the main driving force, gravity.” Also, “More porous soils, such as those with higher sand content, have lower cohesion compared to less porous soils that contain more silt and clay and thus are more prone to sliding” - is the higher soil content more prone to sliding? The content in this paper is good but some wordage may be a bit unnecessary and making the paper more confusing - generally, syntax throughout the paper could be improved. The writing is quite consitent and not too much repetition - although there are places where sentences were similar and could be an opportunity to reduce word count.