Turks in the Teleri? Interpreting Earrings, Stripes, and Veils in Carpaccio’s Narrative Cycles

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article is clearly written and engages with an interesting topic, connecting Carpaccio’s depictions of Turks, Jews, and women to the broader context of Renaissance Venice. It shows good knowledge of the literature and raises relevant questions. However, the text is overly long and sometimes compilatory, the methodology is not clearly defined, and the conclusions lack strength and originality. Figures are not always well integrated. Most importantly, the paper does not include a properly structured final bibliography, which must be provided according to the journal’s standards, and this further accentuates the overall dispersive character of the article. In its current form the paper remains more descriptive than analytical. It should be substantially revised and strengthened.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 1,

Thank you very much for taking the time to review my submission, and for your helpful suggestions. I indicate my attempts to address your concerns below.

 "the text is overly long and sometimes compilatory, the methodology is not clearly defined, and the conclusions lack strength and originality."

I have tried to cut unnecessary deviations and to focus the discussion on items relevant to Carpaccio's use of earrings, stripes and veils in his depiction of some women. I also included a section specifying my methodology and research question.

"Figures are not always well integrated. "

I have labeled the figures in the order in which they appear in the text (and added additional ones). I have also referred to the figures when I reference them in the text in order to better integrate them. 

" the paper does not include a properly structured final bibliography, which must be provided according to the journal’s standards"

I have provided a "Works Cited" section at the end of the article.

Thank you very much for your time and helpful remarks.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

• With regards to referencing, the author has leant quite heavily on Brooke in one particular part of the article (for example, notes 26, 28, 29, 32, 34, 36).  Perhaps an additional source could be used here for robustness. 
• Images certainly need to be mentioned in the text to enable the reader to follow the author's argument and understand the comparisons made (see section 3.3 of article). 
• There are some hesitant phrases: "admittedly inexpert eye" line 310 and "to my knowledge" lines 335 and 385, which could be strengthened through a little more research.

Author Response

• With regards to referencing, the author has leant quite heavily on Brooke in one particular part of the article (for example, notes 26, 28, 29, 32, 34, 36).  Perhaps an additional source could be used here for robustness. 

I rewrote the section, and added references to Barker's works (now notes 59-69)

• Images certainly need to be mentioned in the text to enable the reader to follow the author's argument and understand the comparisons made (see section 3.3 of article). 

I added some images (now there are 10 Figures). I also labeled them according to their appearance in the text, and referenced them throughout. I placed the images approximately where they first appear in the text, but if an appendix or a different arrangement would be more clear, I am happy to revise the placement (and selection) accordingly.

• There are some hesitant phrases: "admittedly inexpert eye" line 310 and "to my knowledge" lines 335 and 385, which could be strengthened through a little more research.

 

I revised this wording (one work I was able to find, which had been inaccessible before). As I am sure you understand, access to some scholarly works can be restricted, according to institutional firewalls, etc. 

 

Thank you so very much for your careful reading of my text, and for your helpful suggestions. I very much appreciate them.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

While I still retain some of the reservations already expressed in the first round of peer review, it must be acknowledged that the author has considerably improved the article and has worked extensively to address the criticisms and concerns raised in the review.