|The revised version of the text improved in many occasions as the authors did a thorough job. I consider the addition of a further study site a valuable asset that gives the study a bolder shape. Below I give a few comments and suggestions that involve in my view minor changes to the text. Thus, I would not insist on seeing the manuscript another time unless the editor sees an urgent need to decide otherwise. |
In general, the addition of the Illgraben site should prompt a (slight) change in the motivation and pitch of the manuscript. My impression is that you could motivate the study by saying that the approach has been shown to work under ideal conditions, which are in many use cases rarely met, and that you want to explore the effects of i) less than ideal network geometries but high SNR events (Pizzo Cengalo), ii) well suited network geometry but low SNR events (Illgraben), and iii) imbalanced training data sets (both? sites). This would give a proper justification of your study design. The new pitch should be better reflected in the abstract (apart from just mentioning you work on two different data sets) and also the end of the introduction.
L 7, change “earthquakes” to “earthquake”
L 8, mention the names of the two locations (Illgraben, Pizzo Cengalo) when listing the data sets
L 9–12, level of detail is imbalanced between the two study site. Consider more equal representation of the results between the two sites.
L 24, LaTEX bibliography issue
L 37, define what you mean with “large events”. Is that for example millions of m³? Or “events that affect entire slopes”? Depending on who reads the article, there may be different personal definitions about “large events”.
L 41, I would add the Ekstrom & Stark reference at the end of the sentence, because this is a nice example of continuous monitoring of large (global) areas.
L 76–80, this is where the adjustments of scope/pitch/motivation could be implemented (see my general comment above).
L 85, does this last sentence not make more sense if it were to occur further up, just after the sentence ending in the middle on line 83?
L 185, change “train” to “training”
L192, “does not allow” … “nor does it allow”, “nor” requires use of “neither” before. Consider rewriting.
L 357–359, can this guessed implication be tested? Otherwise, consider to explicitly mention that you cannot test this. Currently, the “might” is a bit odd and leaves us unsatisfied about what the sentence should imply.
L 392–396, move this part to the results and focus here on the actual discussion of these results, on explaining why the two-step approach performed less well.
L 400–408, this part appears out of context with what is discussed before and after, and especially with what the section title implies.
L 430, “break-off”, do you mean “detachment” (as process) or “detachment zone/site/area” (as spatial description)?
L 434, “bad weather conditions during snowfall periods”, please clarify what “bad” means. Can this be an artifact?
L 437, add “snow” before “avalanches”
L 476–480, I am not quite sure if I can follow this argumentation. According to l 331, a classifier trained on both sites increased the minority class TP (?) value by 10 %. Thus, you might want to relax the statement of “greatly improve” (l 479) a bit, especially when considering the small amount of underlying slope movement events.