deletions | additions       diff --git a/section_Line_by_Line_comments__.tex b/section_Line_by_Line_comments__.tex  index fd05346..6d615e6 100644  --- a/section_Line_by_Line_comments__.tex  +++ b/section_Line_by_Line_comments__.tex 
...
\item[P4006, L4] I wonder if there should be a citation here for the scientific objectives - e.g. \cite{Haywood_2011}. Incidentally, I wonder if the scientific objectives here are really listed in the correct order. Instead they read a little like the order of the first few publications, which may lead people to think that the objectives were determined retrospectively.  \item[P4006, L5] I think you need to differentiate between the actaul and simulated mPWP climate.  \item[P4006, L10] Monsoons doesn't deserve a capital.  \item[P006, \item[P4006,  L11] Should this objective not be higher up the list? \item[P4006, L18] Is `require' the correct word. Perhaps `enforce' would be more appropriate? The PMIP2 LGM subset of simulations with interactive vegetation surely required vegetation to change.  \item[P4006, L22] Is is possible for GMD to link to the whole special issue at this point?  \item[P4006, L25] I don't know if this potential to identify arteacts was ever actually used. If there is an example in one of the papers, it might be nice to give it here.  \item[P4007, L1-8] Would this paragraph about PLISMIP sit better underneath the list of results?  \item[P4007, L9] Word choice of `outputs'. This makes it sounds a bit \item[P4007, L10-36] This lits of output reads a little strangely. I suggest either properly aligning them to the objectives above, or making them more directly linked to the papers.  management speak.  \item[P4007, L14] Is 1.84 presented at an excessive level of accuracy?  \item[P4007, L19] Should this be Zhang et al., 2013b? There are two papers but different lead authors called Zhang in 2013 mentioned. I'm not what the best practice is for differentiating them, but at present they are ambiguous citations.  \item[P4008, L16] I've just realised that this diagram implies that compensating errors do not exist. There's no need to alter the diagram, but perhaps you need to acknowledge that you may get the right answer for the wrong reasons.  \item[P4009, L3] tense of `will be'  \item[P4009, L12] I know all citations definitely state that temporal uncertainty as important, but do they actually address the issue fully. I remember seeing simulations for different orbital conditions at meetings to elaborate this issue, but are they in the cited references?  \item[P4009, L17] This statement seems rather strongly worded as written, especially as it comes without references or examples. You may be able to find some corroboration for it from the PIGS/QUIGS work.  \item[P4009, L29] You may want to rephrase this sentence. I understand that you've saying the date of 3.205Ma may be revised. But would the orbital configuration associated with KM5c alter. If so, then is the justification for the time-slice invalid? Was this not addressed elsewhere \cite{Haywood_2013}?  \end{description}