Article proposes a critique of a policy or practice with specific action proposals or suggestions.
Article follows conventions of academic research article e.g. position in literature, cited sources, and claimed contribution.
Article is based on developments that have not yet occurred.
Article is based on formal logic or mathematical technique.
Language quality: 2/3*
Standard of English expression in article is excellent.
Scope of debate: 0/3
Article addresses an issue which is widely known and debated.
Most related sources are mentioned in article [this is an invitation to careful selection rather than a demonstration of prowess in citation collection i.e. apt and representative choices made in source citations].
Logical flow: 3/3*
Ideas are well organised in article.
The argument presented in article is new.
Review impact: 3/3
The article has been significantly changed as a result of the review process.
Reviewers indicate their appreciation of the article in the form of a 50 word statement.
The paper has been significantly revised and the content is presented in more clear sections. Sections on methods and literature reflection have been introduced. Nonetheless the abstract historiography on social movements does not relate to the later sections on creativity in social mobilisations in the city of Milan. I would strongly suggest that the authors reflect on their literature adequately. The use of English language and some typos should be revised (eg. p6 first paragraph) thus the map scales should be introduced in used maps.
The article positions the case of Macao within different theoretical frameworks, including a discussion of urban commons and right to the city movements, and the reuse of abandoned urban spaces. The analysis of the relationship between Macao and other organisations in the neighbourhood could have benefited from a more nuanced discussion of they are connected with the history and development of housing struggles in the city.
The paper made strong improvements respect the previous version. It is indeed much clearer. There are still doubts on the section dedicated to the literature review. The many quoted authors are scattered and it’s not too clear which is the benefit of the review vis à vis the Macao case.