This study analyzed the role of citizen scientist stations in an extreme rainfall event, which can be beneficial for promoting the utilization of citizen station data for precipitation research. However, there are several concerns that need to be addressed before considering this manuscript for publication.

Major Comment：

1. It is suggested to increase the Data This section focuses on station information, especially the accuracy of the rain gauges used. And the meteorological and remote sensing data source and access was not mentioned in this paper. The missing part can also be added into Data section.
2. The station datasets are often considered as the true value. Thus, the assessment of station datasets is pretty difficult. This paper combined many meteorological and remote sensing datasets to evaluate the station datasets. The precise representation of spatial distribution is crucial here. However, the coverage ranges of many figures in the manuscript appear inconsistent, and there is a lack of information within the figures to indicate their coverage ranges. This is detrimental to the analysis of assessment results. I will provide specific details in minor comments.


Minor Comment:

1. Shen (2015) also investigated that adding more station as fusion data can enhance the accuracy of the precipitation data. Is the necessity of a denser network of station data for urban-scale precipitation research? I recommend expanding the discussion on this point.
2. Line 88-106: Is this hydrological introduction merely serving as background information? Because it seems that the subsequent results do not involve hydrological models.
3. Please provide more detail information for DDF curve. And the full name of DDF appears twice in the text, please delete it.
4. Table 2: Please provide the formula expression of e of different return period.
5. Line 95: what is a.m.s.l? please provide the full name (above sea level?).
6. Line 199-201: Many values do not seem to be obtained from this research, please provide citations or Figure num.
7. Line 185 – 195: This section also appears to lack citations support.
8. Line 288: which fusion method is used in this study? Please provide the detail information of the fusion method or citations.
9. Latitude and longitude range is missing in some figures.
10. It is suggested to indicate the profile direction in Fig.13,14.

Shen Y, Xiong A. Validation and comparison of a new gauge‐based precipitation analysis over mainland China[J]. International journal of climatology, 2016, 36(1): 252-265.

This manuscript attempts to study the importance of citizen science on urban rainfall and flooding. While the authors do have interesting results, there are several concerns that need to be addressed before this can be published. Much of these are focused on restructuring the manuscript so that there is a clearer narrative. Major comment 1 summarizes this, but many of my major concerns can be addressed through consideration of if this is helping this study, which to me is answering the question posed on line 286: "What would happen if data from citizen science stations were included in the process of acquisition and production of radar derived rainfall maps?” 

Major Comments

1. I believe that the most important portion of this paper is the question that is posed on line 286: “What would happen if data from citizen science stations were included in the process of acquisition and production of radar derived rainfall maps?” It took a long time to get to this point as the manuscript currently stands, and much of the framing done for this paper does not help move this question forward. I appreciate the effort that has gone into the diverse amount of analysis showcased, but I do think that some restructuring needs to be done. For example, moving data descriptions to one central location. Further, one could image a figure where information from Figure 4 is compiled with Figure 11 to further push forward the idea that using more data sources is imperative, especially in urban scales. I think that a careful look at what the authors intended purpose of this paper is, and whether the current structure of the paper serves that purpose. I believe that there is very useful work here, but clarification and a better structure is needed!
2. The first paragraph in section 3 should be reworked into a more readable form. I think that using something like a “data” section would be useful. Right now, much of the paper is focused on these rainfall gauges, but there were other data sources used. Having these listed in once place would be better. Then, one could just jump directly into the meat of the analysis presented (which I believe is great) starting at line 150. This would also help with removing some of the continuity errors that I am having while reading through the paper (section 5.3 with the information about the sensors that were used).
3. As it stands, section 4 doesn’t add much to the study. I think that there is a need to contextualize the flooding events that are a result of the rainfall, but this could be better integrated into the analysis of the August 27^th and 28^th Storm in section 5.
4. As currently presented, you are missing a panel in Figure 7.
5. The first mention of any citizen science based platform is on line 255. I would suggest either bringing this forward, reworking some parts of the introduction to be more of a focus on the importance of these data, or remove the emphasis of citizen science in the title of this study.
6. The method of how Figure 12 is important enough to be included and not just referenced. Please add a brief section talking about this.

Minor Comments (in order throughout the document):

1. Authors could consider adding the following citations to their outline of sub-daily extremes, especially as these papers are focused on urban areas and heatwaves leading to extreme rainfall (and this seems like a very key point of this study)
   1. Intensification of sub-daily rainfall extremes in a low-rise urban area (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.uclim.2022.101124)
   2. Compound Extreme hourly rainfall preconditioned by heatwaves most likely in mid-latitudes (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wace.2023.100563)
2. I am unsure if you need the end paragraph of the introduction. I think that there could be a stronger way of ending this section, with a bit more about “to this end, we investigate an intense rainfall event that occurred in the genoa urban center. We present a comprehensive analysis of XYZ…” Etc.
3. Line 69: This could be combined with the paragraph below. It would help tie together that there are complex interactions between the synoptic and regional meteorology, while also pointing out that the complex terrain is a major contribution to rainfall extremes.
4. Not a comment in a bad way at all. I love the use of morphological amphitheatre on line 91!
5. I think that the hydrologic background is useful, but a bit long. Consider consolidating a bit.
6. Consider showing the locations of the rain gauges on figure 1 if possible. Getting a feel of where these stations are in addition to information in Table 1 would be useful.
7. On Figure 3&4: instead of the mean and median being a ‘thick and thin’ line, consider using a dashed like for one to help differentiate.
8. In Table 2 description, please include what is the reference station ( I am assuming it is the GU station in Figure 3).
9. On Figure 5: I suggest demarcating the location of interest to help draw readers attention to the region. You also could consider zooming into the Mediterranean area a bit more.
10. Please consider making the color bar larger on Figures 8 & 9.