Summary:  The paper presents valuable multi-source observations of a severe wet microburst, but readability suffers from long, nested sentences and mixed presentation of results and interpretation. The authors should either combine Results and Discussion, OR retain separate sections by limiting Results to data and moving interpretations to Discussion, ending with a clear take-home message on implications for severe convection warning and hazard mitigation.

Abstract

1. It could more explicitly state the scientific gap it addresses, e.g., limitations of prior single-source or coarse-resolution studies.
2. Multi-source datasets are mentioned, but the rationale for integrating radar, surface, lightning, video, and field data could be clarified; currently it reads as a list rather than showing how each contributes to understanding the mechanism.
3. Radar, surface, and lightning data are detailed, but the abstract does not clearly link them to downburst dynamics, microphysical processes, or resulting surface hazards.
4. A final statement about the broader implications or generalisability of the findings would strengthen the abstract for the journal audience, rather than focusing solely on the case study.

Introduction

1. The first paragraph is redundant and should be rephrased for clarity. Downbursts should be introduced as destructive convective phenomena with a summary of Fujita’s (1976) definition and classification (microburst vs. macroburst; wet vs. dry).
2. The aviation-specific definition at 100 m AGL is too detailed for the general introduction and could be shortened or moved later. If necessary, the significance and hazards should be explained clearly for aviation, maritime, and public safety, with representative incidents illustrating their destructive potential.
3. The classification of “microbursts (4m–4km) and microbursts (4–40km)” should be corrected to microbursts and macrobursts.
4. The research gap is not clear, i.e., current limitations in detection and analysis (radar, single-station data) should be highlighted.
5. Introducing the “May 4, 2025, accident” provides strong motivation, but the transition from background to research gap and case study is not smooth and should be clarified.
6. Examples such as the “Tragic Sinking of the Eastern Star” are important but are introduced abruptly and need smoother integration.
7. The final paragraph should condense the study aim into a single clear statement, e.g., investigating formation, evolution, and disaster-causing processes of the wet micro-downburst using multi-source data.
8. Phrases like “strong convective winds wet micro-downbursts through field observations” are grammatically incorrect and should be reworded for clarity. Also, typos such as “capsized of four passenger ships” should be corrected to “capsizing of four passenger ships.”
9. Numerical statements like radar echo intensity or precipitation thresholds should clarify whether they are general criteria or specific to this event.

Data description/ Weather conditions

1. Some sentences are long and dense. Example, line 77: “Data within 3 hours before and after the event were selected, with a focus on extracting 1-minute resolution of wind speed/direction, air temperature, pressure, and rainfall data from the ‘Tianqing’ Big Data Meteorological Cloud Platform…” could be split for clarity.
2. Were the measurements instantaneous or averaged values? Were gusts recorded differently from winds?
3. Figure references should be consistently numbered and integrated smoothly into the text.

Results

• Combine Results and Discussion or move interpretations from Results to a separate Discussion.

4.1 Evolution characteristics of weather radar detection

• Stay in Results:
  • Cite Figure 3 in the main text.
  • Radar echo evolution (dual-core -> crescent) and timing of downdraft (Figures 3 & 4).
  • REF, ZDR, VEL profiles, vertical descent of strong echo cores.
• Move to Discussion / could be strengthened with additional content:
  • The link between dual-core to crescent-shaped echo evolution and downburst triggering could be emphasised more clearly.
  • Explicit quantification of the descent rate of strong echo cores to connect microphysical processes to surface wind observations.
  • Mechanistic explanation connecting ice-phase particle melting (high ZDR) and enhanced downdraft momentum could cite quantitative estimates of mass loading or evaporative cooling.

4.2 Evolution characteristics of wind, temperature, and air pressure at surface automatic stations

• Stay in Results:
  • Cite figure 5 in the main text.
  • Surface wind speed and direction changes, temperature drops, precipitation accumulation, and air pressure changes (Figure 5).
• Move to Discussion / could be strengthened with additional content:
  • Comparative assessment of spatial variation between R7676 and R7657 in terms of wind speed amplification by terrain.
  • Explicitly linking temperature drop magnitude and timing to downdraft momentum for quantitative correlation.

4.3 Lightning activity characteristics

Cite figure 6 in the main text.

4.4 Verification of disaster-causing process via video surveillance and on-site disaster traces

• Stay in Results:
  • Cite figure 8 in the main text.
  • Temporal progression of downdraft in video surveillance, wind direction changes, hail, wave heights, and disaster damage observations (Figures 7 and 8).
• Move to Discussion / could be strengthened with additional content:
  • Quantifying the correspondence between observed surface wind speeds and damage intensity in each zone.
  • Adding commentary on wind vector magnitudes or rotational components inferred from damage patterns.
  • Linking microphysical processes to surface impacts.

Discussion

1. This section is too short for Discussion. Either keep this only as a Conclusion paragraph or move the contents from the Results here.
2. Check grammar throughout the paper.

Overall Assessment: The manuscript presents a detailed multi-source data fusion analysis of a wet micro-downburst event that caused a passenger ship capsizing in Guizhou, China. The topic is important for improving the understanding of localized severe convective phenomena and their hazards. The study combines radar, surface, lightning, and video data — offering a rare and valuable integrated analysis.  

However, the paper suffers from issues related to language clarity, structure, figure readability, and scientific interpretation depth. The physical mechanisms are well addressed but sometimes repetitive. Strengthening the discussion, scientific context, and comparative analysis with past cases would make the paper more impactful.