A Review of the Geometric Proportions of Shaping a Courtyard of Traditional Architecture in Relation to Human Scale, Tripoli, Libya

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

A Review of Geometric Proportions of Shaping Courtyard of Traditional Architecture in Relation to Human Scale, Tripoli, Libya

-        P. 1, line 37: “An architect draws their designs …” [needs correction]

-        P. 3, line 122: “Oea became the regional capital” [“Oea” needs definition]

-        P. 3, line 132: Here, maybe there is a need to add a plan for the city of Tripoli showing the location of the old town within the whole city.

-        P. 7, Figure 5: Why images from Google?! I think it would be better to use photos by author(s), if possible, since some authors are from Libya.

-        P. 8, line 202: Correia, et al. (2014) stated that "The Arab … [where is the end of quote?]

-        P. 11, Figure 8: Names of the two lowest plans in left column need to be written clearly.

-        P. 11, lines 261-265: This needs more explanation using graphs/ illustrations.

-        It is important to see the following books:

o   “Arabic-Islamic Cities” by Besim Hakim.

o   “Traditional Domestic Architecture of the Arab Region” by Friedrich Ragette

o   “Urban Form in the Arab World - Past and Present” by Stefano Bianca (https://www.archnet.org/publications/10765). Same author wrote a very useful book (in German language): Hofhaus und Paradiesgarten (Courtyard House and the Paradise Garden).

Author Response

Please see the attached file.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Please, see the attached file

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attached file.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

The topic discussed is very interesting, but needs some editing and additions. The bibliographical references are not very recent, but they are relevant. In the abstract, there is a reference to archive documents, but within the methodology, text and images there is no reference to these. Direct observations are also mentioned in the abstract, but, for example, all photographs are taken from Google. Future research developments could update the graphic documentation (the source of which is not mentioned) through digital survey campaigns, through laser scanning technology or multi-image photogrammetry.

The images need to be improved, below are the suggestions:

- In Figure 2, what do the different cartographies indicate? It is not clear from the text or the caption;

- The configuration of the images taken from Google in figure 5 needs to be improved. The image is not clear and the locations of each individual image should be indicated in the caption.

- Figure 6 is also not very clear. I would take the text out of the image. 

- In figures 8 and 9, inscriptions have been cut out. The representation of the plans should be standardised, as should the metric scale of representation. The text should all be the same size;

- In figures 8 and 9, inscriptions have been cut out. The representation of the plans should be standardised, as should the metric scale of representation. The text should all be the same size;

- The graphic procedure detailed in paragraph 6 is not well graphicised in figure 8. Either a diagram of the construction should be added or a legend should be added, using different colours for each type that could refer to figure 10. The same applies to figure 9.

Author Response

Please see the attached file.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

At line 65 the authors again have a confusion: while Phi is an irrational number, pi and e are transcendental numbers, since they cannot be obtained as roots of any finite equation.

I believe that my observations in the previous review have not been taken into account by the authors in this work, not even including any reference to my suggestions in the Introduction, in Figure 16 or in the Discussion

Author Response

Review Report – Authors’ Response (in red)

Reviewer 2- Comments and Suggestions for Authors

At line 65 the authors again have a confusion: while Phi is an irrational number, pi and e are transcendental numbers, since they cannot be obtained as roots of any finite equation.

 

The authors would like to thank the reviewer once again for providing us further information/definitions previously on Golden Ratio and beyond. We have now corrected the related paragraph with Golden Ratio as was pointed out.

I believe that my observations in the previous review have not been taken into account by the authors in this work, not even including any reference to my suggestions in the Introduction, in Figure 16 or in the Discussion

We have already included some suggestions in introduction related with the Golden Ratio. At this stage, we prefer not to expand on any further definitions on ratios/proportions such as Silver, Cordovan, etc., however, we do appreciate the reviewer’s suggestions, which may be considered in the future studies. As well, a deeper analysis of the proportions of the courtyards of the buildings of the city of Tripoli is a good scope for a further study, considering these ratios/proportions as were pointed out by the reviewer.

In addition, we have further edited our manuscript throughout and once more for any possible errors/typos for English.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf