Dear Author

I reviewed your paper “Local floods in Madeira Island between 2009 and 2021. Rainfall analysis and risk assessment in mountain streams”. Despite I recognize that you and your co-authors worked a lot on it, and your English is perfectly understandable, I think that your paper is still not ready for an international journal as NHESS. In the following, I will describe the points that not convinced me and I give you some suggestions to strength them.

• First of all, the paper is shaped as a case study, a report of events occurred in a specific site, without any possible relation with other case studies/sites. I suggest to ask yourself what a reader (that is not interested to your study area) could learn from your paper. The methodology? In this case you should strength the methodology description, introducing a flow chart and keeping in mind people that are interested in reproduce the same approach. You should give less emphasis to the description of the effects of the events, which are local, and repeat themselves everywhere, even with stronger severity.
• It is difficult to appreciate the actual significance of this research because methodology and results are merged and it is difficult to understand what are the premises and what are the results. More in general, you should work to highlight: what is the aim of the paper? What you are doing in this paper? And why? What is the need that this paper is going to meet? In what way this will happen? Answering to these questions could help you to rearrange the paper in a way more similar to the classical structure of scientific papers.
• Particularly, Introduction must state the objectives of the work and provide an adequate background, placing the study in a broad context and highlight why it is important. It should define the purpose of the work and its significance and the current state of the research field reviewed using key (and recent) publications, also highlighting controversial and diverging hypotheses. Oppositely, your Introduction is an introduction to the study area and no recent papers with a similar approach are quoted and compared in terms of objectives and methodology to your paper
• Methodology must provide sufficient details to allow the work to be reproduced by an independent researcher
• Conclusions must report the conclusions (not the synthesis) obtained from your study and possible applications in other frameworks, highlighting whether some of them  have generic application, rather than being case-specific
• About figures: you should do a selection of most significant figures for readers customized to see geomorphic effects of floods and landslides. Captions of figures and tables are very long: I suggest to review them.
• Tables should be formatted in a better way, avoiding redundancies and rows with more than a line (you should simply enlarge the columns…). And moreover, in an international journal you should try to summarize instead of present long lists of data. Actually, you should identify and propose only data functional to highlight something (i.e. review tab 4).
• References denotes the absence of a specific research on recent similar papers. I suggest to do this step before rearrange the paper and to add to references only the articles quoted in the paper (Blöschl is only in references)

I hope that these suggestions can help you to improve your paper.

Best regards 

This study is a comparative analysis of torrential floods that occurred in specific villages on the northern side of Madeira Island during December 2020 and January 2021, compared with earlier local events from 2009, 2012, and 2013. The study focuses on understanding the hydrogeomorphological events characterized by interactions between slope movements (landslides, debris flows) and fluvial dynamics (flash floods) in mountainous regions like Madeira Island, triggered by intense precipitation episodes exceeding critical thresholds, leading to peak discharges in various catchments.

Although the study has some interesting insights, it appears to be in need of a lot of improvements and restructuring to make it of a quality that would be ready to be considered for NHESS. For example, the description of susceptibility appears to oversimplify the relationships between topography, geology, and flood hazard susceptibility. English writing should be improved on topics like sentence constructions, and the flow/narrative of the story should be improved a lot for some sections like introduction and discussion.

Specific comments:

Suggestion to write title without full stop to make it more attractive.

Abstract

• To increase interpretability and readership of the manuscript please keep to the conventional way of writing an abstract (background, rationale, main message, approach/results, implications). For me now the abstract does not give a proper overview of the manuscript.
• Some sentence are very long and hard to dissect.
• Refrain from using words like “surprising”.
• “Early warning system” is mentioned in the abstract, but not in the manuscript. Why is this mentioned only here? And if so, there should be a clear indication why it is included

Introduction

• Header numbering missing
• Layout of text is different than rest of the manuscript
• What is meant with “Bibliography” line 38?
• Impressive has a positive connotation, so maybe use another word when talking about disasters.
• Instead of reading an introduction which builds on top a problem statement with background information and scientific relevancy of the identified research gap, this introduction reads as a case study area description. Suggestion to rewrite introduction.
• The overall objective should be clearly defined based on the research gap. Now it just states it is expected to bring new scientific contributions. The research objectives are not well identified. What is meant with analyse the data? What type of analysis? How is the relevancy demonstrated of the high-resolution susceptibility map? What is meant with high-resolution? Is local-scale or small-scale more suitable?

Data

• To help the reader understand the manuscript better, a flowchart depicting the methodological steps is needed.
• The technique is commonly referred to as Annual Maxima
• As correctly stated in line 83-83, for impact analysis annual maxima might not be relevant as more than one extreme value per year can be of importance. Why is not a peak over threshold method selected here?
• Please use subheadings for sections throughout the manuscript to help the reader understand the aim of the specific section.
• Line 91, what is meant by maximum precipitation variable in 24 hours? What is the unit of this variable?
• What would be the sensitivity of using k=0.8 to the findings of the study?

Rainfall

• Please also show R2 values for Figure 6
• Where there checks done for homoscedasticity of the data?
• The plots are difficult to interpret and compare when the x-axis scale changes each subplot in Figure 6

Discharge

• How does the occurrence of secondary peaks of intense rainfall correlate with the complex flood patterns observed in the studied catchments?
• How reliable and valid are the peak flood flow estimations obtained from the HEC-HMS model?

Flood risk

• Line 436: Susceptibility to?
• I find the susceptibility map to be oversimplified as it also seems to be just an indication of previous events. There is limited quantitative analysis or data-driven assessment of susceptibility factors such as slope gradient, geology, rainfall intensity, or land cover. Without quantitative analysis, the susceptibility map may not accurately represent the true spatial distribution and intensity of flood hazards.
• The text indicates that the susceptibility map was created based on field survey work and manual identification of areas susceptible to torrential floods, slope movements, and debris flows. The term "cartographic sketch" suggests a less formal and more subjective approach to mapping susceptibility.

Discussion

• The discussion appears to be a summation of what was found in the study. There is no discussion on limitations or implications of this study. It would help if this study has a clearly defined research question to answer, which was also lacking in the introduction.