The Church of S. Maria Delle Palate in Tusa (Messina, Italy): Digitization and Diagnostics for a New Model of Enjoyment
, Sara Bonanno 1,†, Francesco Parrotta 1,†, Viviana Mollica Nardo 1, Gianfranco Anastasio 2,†, Maria Luisa Saladino 3, Francesco Armetta 3 and Rosina Celeste Ponterio 1Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
I think the whole work is interesting and the authors have done great work for this case study. I suggest use more SOTA 3D data processing and modeling methods to enhance the novelty of this work.
Author Response
Dear reviewer 1,
Thank you for your peer-review. In consideration of the latter, the revised version of the manuscript includes an implementation of the state of the art, data processing and modelling methods. Each editing action is visible thanks to the track changes function.
Best regards.
Dario Giuffrida, on behalf of the authors.
Reviewer 2 Report
The paper presents a project of digitization and diagnostics on the cultural heritage, aimed at creating a digital archive useful for fruition, conservation, monitoring and dissemination, but also as a container for extracting information at different levels of depth. It focuses on a case study, Santa Maria delle Palate Church, located in Tusa, Italy.
There is a short state of art section, followed by a description of the case study considered and of the methodology adopted. Then, a discussion of the obtained results is reported.
It is opinion of the Reviewer that the paper is well structured and describes in depth the issues investigated. Therefore, the paper deserves to be published in the Journal, after a round of revision according to the following comments.
Point 1. In the introduction of the paper it is not clear what’s the novelty of the paper, and why the methodology proposed/followed should be applied. Please, add comments in order to improve the readability fo the paper.
Point 2. Line 94. Reviewer agrees with the Authors. However, there are several techniques to date developed for investigating the internal damages of churches, starting from instance, from dynamics identification tests, or else with sonic or GPR local tests. Among the others, the Authors may refer to:
- Lopez, S., D’Amato, M., Ramos, L., Laterza, M., and Lourenço, P.B. 2019. “Simplified Formulations for Estimating the Main Frequencies of Ancient Masonry Churches.” Frontiers in Built Environment 5 (March). https://doi.org/10.3389/fbuil.2019.00018.
- Mesquita, E., Brandão, F., Diogenes, A., Antunes, P., and Varum, H. (2017). Ambient vibrational characterization of the Nossa Senhora das Dores Church. Eng. Struct. Technol. 9, 170–182. doi: 10.3846/2029882X.2017. 1416311
In this way it may be pointed that the study presented may be as well addressed, due to many information gathered, to structural purposes, boosting the manuscript within the scientific literature.
Point 3. 4.1.3. Data processing. Please improve the description of what is reported in the bullet list (line 216-line 320).
Point 4. 4.2.2. Data acquisition. Results reported in Figure 12 and Figure should be better commented.
Point 5. Section 5.1. 3D models. Line 513. Reviewer cannot find a correspondence between the Figure 12 mentioned and the new plan compared with Figure 5 a-b. Please check it.
Point 6. Section 5.2. Raman and XRF spectra. It is not clear what are the results comments in this section. Please improve it.
Point 7. Make sure that for all the acronyms mentioned within the paper are described in the paper.
Point 8. The quality of some figure be improved (for instance check Figure 8, Figure 19).
Point 9. Conclusions should be revised reporting only the main outcomes of the work presented
Author Response
Dear Reviewer 2,
Thank you for your peer-review and your suggestions.
With reference to these, I would like to inform you that all the suggestions have been taken into consideration in the revised manuscript.
Below, I reply point by point to your observations.
Point 1. In the introduction of the paper it is not clear what’s the novelty of the paper, and why the methodology proposed/followed should be applied. Please, add comments in order to improve the readability to the paper.
In the last 16 lines of the introduction we have tried to better clarify which are the novelty and the final goal of the work, underlining why the methodology proposed is the best suitable.
Point 2. Line 94. Reviewer agrees with the Authors. However, there are several techniques to date developed for investigating the internal damages of churches, starting from instance, from dynamics identification tests, or else with sonic or GPR local tests. Among the others, the Authors may refer to:
Lopez, S., D’Amato, M., Ramos, L., Laterza, M., and Lourenço, P.B. 2019. “Simplified Formulations for Estimating the Main Frequencies of Ancient Masonry Churches.” Frontiers in Built Environment 5 (March). https://doi.org/10.3389/fbuil.2019.00018.
Mesquita, E., Brandão, F., Diogenes, A., Antunes, P., and Varum, H. (2017). Ambient vibrational characterization of the Nossa Senhora das Dores Church. Eng. Struct. Technol. 9, 170–182. doi: 10.3846/2029882X.2017. 1416311
In this way it may be pointed that the study presented may be as well addressed, due to many information gathered, to structural purposes, boosting the manuscript within the scientific literature.
The suggested bibliography has been inserted in the revised manuscript (lines 147) and also the question of the applications of the methodology adopted for a structural monitoring has been dealt with (lines 658-659).
Point 3. 4.1.3. Data processing. Please improve the description of what is reported in the bullet list (line 216-line 320).
The description of each bullet has been improved, describing in full each step of the process.
Point 4. 4.2.2. Data acquisition. Results reported in Figure 12 and Figure should be better commented.
The figure 12 has been better commented in its caption as well in the lines 570-571.
Point 5. Section 5.1. 3D models. Line 513. Reviewer cannot find a correspondence between the Figure 12 mentioned and the new plan compared with Figure 5 a-b. Please check it.
The figure number was wrong in the text and now is fixed: the new plan is shown in the fig. 11 and 7; the old plan is shown in the fig. 5 a-b.
Point 6. Section 5.2. Raman and XRF spectra. It is not clear what are the results comments in this section. Please improve it.
Section 5.2. has been modified, in the light of your suggestion.
Point 7. Make sure that for all the acronyms mentioned within the paper are described in the paper.
The acronyms are described in full only the first time they appears in the text.
Point 8. The quality of some figure be improved (for instance check Figure 8, Figure 19).
The figures have been replaced with others having the higher resolutions.
Point 9. Conclusions should be revised reporting only the main outcomes of the work presented
The conclusions have been revised, according to your suggestion.
In addition to the above comments, some spelling and grammatical errors pointed out by the reviewers have been corrected.
We look forward to hearing from you in due time regarding our submission and to respond to any further questions and comments you may have.
Sincerely
Dario Giuffrida, on behalf of the authors.
Reviewer 3 Report
See attached file.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Dear Reviewer 3,
Thank you for giving me the opportunity to submit a revised draft of my manuscript.
With reference to your peer-review, I would like to inform you that all the suggestions have been taken into consideration in the revised version of the manuscript.
- Some terms (fruition, promotion, automatic survey) have been better explained or replaced and a general rephrasing ad editing has been carried out. In this regard, we point out that with the term 'fruition' (especially in the title) we meant the possibility to directly or remotely enjoy or access a specific cultural site.
As you can see from the "track changes" of the revised manuscript all the list of comments, spelling and grammatical errors pointed out by you have been corrected.
We look forward to hearing from you in due time regarding our submission and to respond to any further questions and comments you may have.
Sincerely,
Dario Giuffrida on behalf of the authors
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
The paper has been revised according to the comments provided. Therefore, it opinion of the Reviewer that it deserves to be published.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer #2,
I would like to thank you for your peer-review. With reference to this, I would like to inform you that further revisions to the text have been made in order to improve the readability of the text, as you can see in the revised version.
Best regards.
Dario Giuffrida, on behalf of the authors.
Reviewer 3 Report
This version of the manuscript is much improved, although there are still a number of places where the wording is awkward, for example Lines 14-16, 36, 48, 57, 62, 79, 97, 110, 116, 194, 198, 249, 455, 503, 531, 538, 592, 662. In some of these cases, it is simply a word change/addition. The authors need to peruse the manuscript and carefully improve the flow (readability) of the paper. I think the manuscript should to be published and that can happen with this next set of minor revisions and final editing from the editor.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
I would like to thank you for your peer-review. With reference to this, I would like to inform you that further revisions to the text have been made in order to improve the readability of the text (awkward sentences, English, spell checks), as you can see in the revised version. Each of the sentences you pointed me out (Lines 14-16, 36, 48, 57, 62, 79, 97, 110, 116, 194, 198, 249, 455, 503, 531, 538, 592, 662) has been revised. Furthermore, the abstract has been significantly improved for the purpose of a better presentation of the work as well the introduction and the conclusions.
Best regards.
Dario Giuffrida
