“Geological Wonders of Italy”: The Coveted Privilege of Disseminating Geology and Geomorphology through Science Documentaries in the Marche Region
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe lack of an evaluation of the scientific quality of the geomorphosites identified as stops in the documentary based on academic classification criteria although the value of each site is indisputable that would have added more value to the scientific aspect of the film.
Author Response
Dear revisor, your consideration is very appropriate but the value of each site can be considered undoubted both from a scientific and a landscape value point of view, and for this reason, no academic classification was used, but was based primarily on the site's functionality in terms of geology, chronostratigraphy, logistics, and landscape attractiveness.
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear Authors,
The manuscript by Farabollini et al. is an interesting contribution that aims at drawing attention to the promotion of the rich geoheritage in Marche region.
Although the success of the initiative is undebatable, with an episode broadcast on TV with a remarkable share score, the manuscript lacks order and must be improved, with attention being put in several sections.
The English level is overall good but can be improved. It would be desirable that it got reviewed by a native English speaker.
Please find my comments and suggestions below.
General comments
Section 2. Materials and Methods – The first two paragraphs of this section should be in the introduction section, as no materials and methods are described, but general remarks on the protection and divulgation of the geoheritage. It should be described here how the different geological stops were selected: is there any table with scores based on their interest, attractiveness…etc?
A Results section is missing. This is a serious flaw. Most of information in Section 3 should be here instead. Also, it should be described
Section 3. Analysis and discussion – If I am correct, each of the subsections describes a different geo-itinerary with rocks of different geological periods. I think it should be described clearly, because as it is now it seems like the geology of the region is being described. Also, this should be part of the Results section. Analysis and Discussion must deal with the interpretation of the results obtained.
Line-by-line comments
Line 32 – Delete extra comma after [3].
Line 34 – Replace ) by ]
Lines 77-88 – These two paragraphs should be part of the introduction section, and not of the materials and methods section.
Lines 89-90 – Remove “technology”.
Line 99 – Replace “troupe” by crew.
Lines 104-105 – I do not understand the meaning of these lines. What is the difference between the most frequented geosites and the most popular ones?
Line 106 – Replace “inserted” by selected.
Lines 115-117 – Please rewrite, as it is difficult to follow what you mean here.
Lines 125-353 – This should be part of a results section (which is missing), not of “Analysis and Discussion”.
Line 127 – Remove “individuated”.
Line 127 – Tectono-stratigraphic.
Line 128 – Rewrite: “…regions, which in the past were a…”
Line 128 – Maybe you mean “single” instead of “unique”?
Line 132 – What’s heteropic? You mean heterogeneous?
Line 135 – Rewrite: “…with a shallow sea level, allowing sunlight to get to the seafloor.”
Line 135 – Rewrite: “…allowing the proliferation…”
Line 137 – Hamlet?
Line 150 – Please homogenize “recognisable “ or “recognizable” throughout the text.
Line 150 – Replace “troupe” by “crew”.
Line 152 – Replace “very curious” by “remarkable”.
Line 155 – Replace “an hamlet” by “a hamlet”.
Line 159 – Specify it is 99.6% CaCO3.
Line 164 – Replace “quiet” by “quietness”.
Line 165 – “On” the Earth’s surface.
Line 166 – What can be observed? The signs from the impact? Please rewrite to make it clear.
Line 167 – Replace “so” by “very”.
Line 169 – Rewrite: “Bottaccione Gorge was recently awarded the “Golden Spike”…”
Line 193 – I think “foresaw” does not fit there. Rewrite: “…gypsum deposits were visited…” or similar.
Line 196 – Remove the second “by”.
Line 199 – “Once” instead of “once a time”.
Line 201 – “…is part of…” would suit better.
Line 207 – F in “Fig. 5” in capital letters.
Line 218 – Replace “…the same…” by “…the aforementioned…”.
Line 225 – “We find them”, rather than “we found them”
Line 226 – Replace commas in numbers by points.
Line 230 – Figure caption: “Modified after 53”. Remove the point before brackets.
Line 236 - F in “Fig. 5” in capital letters.
Line 240 – What is “calanque”?.
Line 249 – Rewrite: “…where Glyptostrobus europaeus developed in a paleo-lacustrine environment…”.
Line 255 – Replace “structurization” by “structure” or “disposition”.
Line 265 – Evidences/Features
Line 272 – Earth does not suit here. Please remove it.
Line 273 – “F” in “Fig. 6” in capital letters.
Line 275 – Rewrite: “ …whose action erased the Pleistocene glacial forms”.
Figure 6 – Please make text bigger. Also, it would be interesting to add some colors to help differentiate each of the features.
Line 282 – Add “the”: “…for the compressive tectonic…”.
Line 286 - “F” in “Fig. 7” in capital letters.
Fig. 7 – Please add scale.
Line 302 - “F” in “Fig. 8” must be in capital letters.
Line 303 – Rewrite: “This large gravity-driven mass movement…”
Line 305 – Rewrite: “…conditioning…”
Line 307 – Rewrite: “…three-century-old…”
Fig. 8 – Add scale.
Fig. 8b – It seems (at least I cannot see any) there are not rocks in the area shown of type 3; if so it should be removed from legend. Also, it is difficult to differentiate in the map between 9 and 10, it would be nice if you could fix this.
Lines 324-325 – Rewrite: “…and cultural heritage, which enhances…”
Line 361 – Rewrite: “…thanks also to 3D video animations created ad hoc…” or “…thanks also to 3D video animations created for this purpose…”.
Line 362 - “F” in “Fig. 10” must be in capital letters.
Fig. 10 – It would be nice to label each picture add a little explanation of what is shown on the images in the figure caption.
Fig. 10 caption – Rewrite: “…to make communication easier to understand”.
Line 402 – “…in a way that preserves…”.
--
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageThe English level is overall good but can be improved. It would be desirable that it got reviewed by a native English speaker.
Author Response
Dear revisor,
as you suggested, we moved the first two paragraphs in the Introduction section.
As we mentioned in the text, the single geosites (stops of the documentary) were not selected following academic classification tables or methodologies. Because this was not the goal of the documentary. Because the value of each site can be considered undoubted both from a scientific and a landscape value point of view, and for this reason, no academic classification was used, but was based primarily on the site's functionality in terms of geology, chronostratigraphy, logistics, and landscape attractiveness.
As you properly suggested, we substituted the “Analysis and Discussion” section with the “Result” section.
A paragraph was inserted at the beginning of Section 3 describing the conceptual method of subdivision of the different stops in the documentary.
Line by line comments: we appreciated your precision in describing your suggestions and we applied all of it.
Fig. 8b was captured from an ancient image [slightly modified from 67]. Therefore, unfortunately it is not possible to distinguish 9 and 10.
We also rechecked and improved the English.
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear authors,
congratulations on the interesting article and innovative approach. I believe the article should be published but I have some small modifications to propose:
1. I believe the quality of some figures could be improved in order to better observe the details. For instance, in Fig. 1 is a bit difficult to read the names in the map; in Fig. 5, the quality of the photo is not very good; in Fig. 6, the letters could be a bit bigger; in Fig. 8, the N (indicating North) should not be in horizontal position. The overall quality of the figures could be a bit better.
2. I do not think the type of writing in the last phrase of the first paragraph is adequate to a scientific paper. I understand the kindness and the intention, but the writing form should be coherent to a scientific article.
3. In line 58, the authors say "..., have been treated in the simplest language, as popular as possible,...". I understand the effort, but I do not believe we should treat accessibility as synonym to simplification. When we do scientific communication, we cannot treat the people as incapable of understanding complex information, we must only understand that most of them are not intimate to the theme. Therefore, we should not "simplify the language", we must make it accessible, which is not the same thing.
4. Line 128, it should be rewritten as "... Umbria-Marche regions which, in the past, was a unique..."
This is all. Again, congratulations on the interesting manuscript.
Kind regards,
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageThe overall quality is very good. There are some minor mistakes that could be corrected with a careful re-reading by the authors.
Author Response
We appreciated your appropriate suggestions and we applied all of it. Unfortunately, the Fig. 5 come from an old picture [53 modified] and we can’t provide a better image.
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear Editor and authors,
The authors have properly addressed most of my previous comments and suggestions, and the manuscript is in much better shape now. I consider it should be published in its present form.
--
