The study is a compilation of data analysis and a huge collective effort of a large team on its own right. The manuscript handles and investigates the integration of field geology and high-resolution seismological data in order to reconstruct the 3D Fault Model  of the sources which gave rise to the 2010-2014 Pollino seismic sequence and related aspects. However the manuscript is highly fragmented, and the unified scientific overall story and implication are quite weak for the journal publication. Furthermore, there are lots of inconsistent explanations with different scales that are hard to understand quantitatively. However, I advice Minor Correction and encourage the authors for a resubmission.

Hence, I think if the following sections of abstract/introduction/discussions/conclusions are written more succinctly and significantly improved in order to let the reader get all the salient facts, and I would have no problem in recommending publication but, as is, I think some minor/moderato revisions are in order to warrant its publication. The decision may be disappointing, but I do hope the authors can carefully address the comments and make the revised manuscript more concise, focused, and scientifically significant. Yet, to streamline the message, a lean and concise manuscript will benefit the potential future readers.

I read with interest the paper from Cirillo D. and co-Authors and I strongly appreciated the effort of collecting and managing a huge volume of field ad seismological data to understand better the seismotectonic processes governing northern Calabria where the 2010-2014 Pollino seismic sequence nucleated. Although is not always true because of the heterogeneity of the crust, the idea of join surface field data with hypocentres at depth is of great interest in solving seismotectonic problems concerning for instance source geometry determination. The paper is in general well written even if a general reorganization of the paragraph is needed to follow better the text. What I mean is to separate literature data from new results, and the latter from interpretation. For instance, I suggest to not include section 2.1 (Geological Setting) in section 2 but to separate them, and I invite the authors to continue with the same spirit. Number of sections should be reduced, and a review of English is necessary. Finally, I guess that the manuscript has the potentiality to become a resonant paper for readers interested into a deeper insight about the seismotectonic of the investigated area deserving publication in Solid Earth after minor corrections.

Sincerely

Giovanni Barreca