Dear Colleague
Dear Arthur
Thank you for the substantial revisions you did in your manuscript. However, small points raised by the 2 reviewers are still confusing and deserve clarification. Briefly: the Saharan dust source invoked line 367 and beyond and lines 416-417 is not convincing and the reader does not understand how you disentangle this atmopsheric signal from the margin one. The Fe/Al ratio is not relevant to this extent because it can have a crustal value while discharged by the Tagus (or any suspended matter from the margin as proposed line 471-473) and a "non crustal" one while resulting from atmospheric fallout (see line 621, as you are arguing).
Clearly, a circulation scheme (currents, not water bodies only) is missing, it would help to argue for the NAC transport and Saharan origin of the particles, if relevant.
I thank you for taking these comments in consideration in your revised version
regards
Catherine Jeandel, AE

Dear Arthur
Considering the exchanges we already had, I invite you to submit the revised version of your manuscript again.
The editorial board estimated that it needs to be checked by the reviewers again
I will manage this new round and hope this won't take too much time
best regards
Catherine

Dear Mr Gourain,
I read your revised version. I really appreciated the modifications you did, they clearly improved the manuscript. However, considering the initial exigences of the 2 reviewers, I rather like to ask their advices on this new version before giving my definitive green light for publication. Hope this won't take long.
Best regards
Catherine jeandel

Dear Arthur
We now received the review of your revised manuscript "Inputs and processes affecting the distribution of particulate iron in the North Atlantic along the GEOVIDE (GEOTRACES GA01) section". Following the reviewer recommendation, I invite you to shorten and make clearer the second part of your article. This is a huge work, which deserves publication, but needs more improvement. I concour with the reviewer on this point. Thus, this (hopefully) last "come and go" will make your paper more readable, in other words more visible.

Dear Arthur
I am very sorry but owing to the comments of the reviewer, who is still willing to work on your manuscript again, I have to ask you to work on your wording and phrasing with the help of a native English speaking person. The impact of your very interesting work will be broader if it is more readable...
best regards
catherine

Dear Arhur
I am pleased to send you the review of your manuscript entitled
"Inputs and processes affecting the distribution of particulate iron in the North Atlantic along the GEOVIDE (GEOTRACES GA01) section" submitted to Biogeosciences.

I concour with the reviewer: your manuscript is considerably better, although it still needs some minor improvements. I invite you to consider the last comments of the reviewer and to try again to shorten the wordiest parts of your text. As I already told you, the more readable it is, the more read it will be!
best regards
catherine

Dear Arthur
I am pleased to let You know that the revised version of your manuscript entitled
"Inputs and processes affecting the distribution of particulate iron in the North Atlantic along the GEOVIDE (GEOTRACES GA01) section" is now accepted for publication. Congrats for your perseverance, your paper definitely improved after some back and forth with the reviewer.