Junbo345
commented
2 weeks ago Thank you for your thoughtful review of my paper. I appreciate your positive feedback on the structure and the discussion regarding city policy.
Regarding the concerns about the age categorization, I have modified the definition of "working age" to clarify it further. However, due to time constraints, I am unable to address all the other suggestions like avering data.
I understand the importance of these points and will consider them for future revisions. Thank you again for your valuable insights!
Opening Statement Summary
I am peer-reviewing the paper from Felix Li. This paper talks about the homeless population in Toronto and the effectiveness of relevant city policies.
Strong positive points
A clear structure, following the minds is easy.
Discussion with city policy.
Critical Improvements Needed
Averaged quarterly data may not always be nice replacement for monthly data. Think about the weather in Toronto, the homeless people are greatly affected by it. It might be a good idea if also looking at monthly data, or the weather factor.
You may mention more about your work of eliminating the challenge of measuring accurate data, for example, on the cleaning data part.
The definition of working age is not clear enough. Some citations or more convincing resources are optional.
Suggestions for Improvement
More suggestion and analysis of city policies. Comparing Toronto with other policies is a good idea, Maybe just some more? Such as refugee policies.
The results are clear, but some explanation could make it better. It is interesting to know the population of working-age homeless people is increasing, what might be the reason behind?
Evaluation
Structure is clear and focused, it's a nice paper. Maybe write some more with more graphs. 85/100