Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The article is very interesting and the topic is well approached with good plan drawings of the castle. Some of the current pictures may be presented in a bigger scale or substituted with details of described features lacking a graphic counterpart (sgraffito are mentioned more than once but there is not a close up picture about one of them).

Section 1 of the article (Introduction) presents a good narrative guiding the reader through the relevant scholarship on the castle. Portions of the text containing citations and references only without contributing to the overall narrative may be retained as footnotes (lines 100-105).

Section 4 of the article (The Results of the Research) may require minor alterations:

- The four main historical periods approached need a clear identification by the introduction of sub- paragraphs or at least a double space line;

- There are a few descriptions of decorative patters and architectural features lacking an adequate graphic counterpart. Lines 237-242, 248-253 for example describe decorative patters not displayed in any of the presented pictures. Likewise, lines 256-258 refers to picture 4a where t he detail is too tiny in size to be actually identified. At least the last pattern may be in need of an additional image showing the element in detail;

- Finally, Section 4 analyzes two locations in the castle: the “Knight Hall” and the “Chapel” (lines 347- 370). It would be a good idea to also indicate these locations in plan. Picture 10 (the Knight Hall) contains architectural features making it easy to understand the room’s location. However, it is a good idea to assume the average reader may not catch such details.

Author Response

Dear Reviwer

Thank you for all your comments.

Section 1. We have moved the quotes to the footnotes.

Section 4. As suggested, we added sgraffito photos and marked the locations of the Knight's Hall and the chapel.

Thank You

Authors

Reviewer 2 Report

• The paper covers a story telling on a specific case study, showing limited novelty.
• Most references are in Polish only, which makes it hard to check their quality or if they are pertinent; while these references may be useful, and probably the only available, a comparison of the same topic in international literature would improve the scientific approach.
• A recount of the fieldwork performed would be welcome
• The oldest references explaining the initial construction (1856) are three hundred years younger than the building itself; this description was later repeated by several authors, but it should be put in question for a number of reasons, including the lack of similar examples of the same decades or the absence of documentation (plans, work records, etc.)
• The figures that illustrate the paper can be improved (i.e. 1, 6-9, 12-17)

Author Response

Dear Reviwer

Thank you for all your comments.

We supplemented the text with references from international literature. When we presented the literature on the castle, we referred to all previous studies. Unfortunately, (You are right) there are no preserved plans from the 16th century (from the construction period) and only two views come from the 17th century - we publish one of them (figure no. 3).

The year 1563 - the most important date that allows to determine the time of the castle's construction is included in the inscription above the main gate (Figure 2).

The indicated illustrations (1, 6-9, 12-17 we improved and added Figure 2 with the inscription table. Unfortunately, the quality of the drawings (when entering into Word for Windows) significantly decreased (together with the manuscript we sent illustrations in a better resolution).

Best regards

Authors

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear authors,

The manuscript is interesting and reveal an extensive research of the castle in Prószków, but in my opinion, apart from the historical context it is necessary to perform analytical analysis (SEM-EDS, XRD, Raman; FTIR, ICP) to confirm the provenance/composition of the materials, which complement the characterisation of this Cultural Heritage asset and confirm the comparisons performed.

On the other hand, I suggest to rewrite the abstract, in order to improve the interest and impact of the manuscript. In my opinion it is important to highlight the main results achieved and not describing the strategy used to obtain them.

Please revised the English to improve the quality of the manuscript.

From my point of view, the purpose of the research should be relocated at the end of Introduction section. Materials and Methods needs improvement (analytical analyses based on a multidisciplinary approach).

Some mistakes were detected:

• Introduction, Page 1, Line 25
• Lack of space between text and figures (Page 2, Fig. 1; Page 8, Fig. 9; Page 11, Fig 10; Page 14, Fig. 11, Page 16, Fig. 13) probably due to journal editing.
• I suggest to put (a) and (b), present on figure 4 and 18, on the figure area (in a corner of each figure for example).
• In the figure 6, Legend with different size.

I suggest to rewrite strong and impactful concluding remarks.

The citation way and references section should be revised according to journal guidelines.

Author Response

Dear Reviwer

Thank You for all the suggestions.

The analytical analysis indicated in the review were performed with stratigraphic studies of plasters (we added these reports to the References). We improved the abstract with the comments included in the review. The text was checked by the English native speacker. We improved the indicated illustrations and added new ones (unfortunately, inserting the illustrations in Word for Windows significantly reduced their quality). We improved the ending and references.

Best regards

Authors

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The manuscript has been improved,as most of the required revisions have been performed.