1 tried to evaluate and improve the performance of the commercial soil moisture sensor CS‐615 (Campbell Scientific Inc., Logan, UT). The authors should be complimented for their devoted efforts to provide growers with an accurate yet inexpensive tool for monitoring water content (WC), a critical parameter in agricultural production. Practically the authors propose a three‐phase campaign:

1. . Extensive use of low cost but problematic sensors;
2. . An upgrade, by one way or another, of the factory‐supplied sensor calibration; and
3. . Use of time domain reflectrometry (TDR) technology to intermittently verify water content reflectometer (WCR) calibration stability under field conditions.

My following comments intend to show that: (i) the calibration strategy offered and discussed by the authors may be problematic, (ii) the measurement frequency gap is unbridgeable, (iii) the selected experimental site is not a typical agricultural example, and (iv) it is worth checking if a simple and cheap electrical resistance measurement could not bring the same benefit for a fraction of the price.