{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.04005340453938585, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0267022696929239, 'mean_word_length': 4.5724907063197024, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
A new model for the growth of normal faults developed above pre-existing structures: COMMENT

The Iceland rift is worldwide one of the best monitored and documented system of volcanic growth faults (e.g., Müller et al., 2017; Bonali et al., 2019; Weismüller et al., 2019; Iezzi et al., 2020; and references in each of these). The data presented by Bramham et al. (2021) lie in a length scale between that of Google Earth  and unmanned aerial vehicle and therefore only partially resolve some of the well-established complexities that are required for interpreting the surface manifestation of fault zones in this setting (Holland et al., 2006; Kettermann et al., 2016, 2019). For example, the interpretations presented by Bramham et al. of individual faults only consider D max and L and D variation over the length of a fault. Other recognized (and in our opinion) important measurable attributes not considered or discussed include opening width at the surface, presence of tilted blocks, cooling joint geometry, collapsed basalt relays, infills of snow or sediment, and vegetation (Holland et al., 2006; Bubeck et al. 2017a). As a result, Bramham et al. arrive at an over-simplified and, in our opinion, flawed model of fault and fissure development. The worldwide L - D data set reproduced and added to by the authors gives useful constraints on the geometry and development of faults in rocks. However, it is increasingly recognized that the substantial scatter in the data set is caused by a