Dear authors, thank you for your submission entitled "Kriging meta-models for damage equivalent load assessment of idling offshore wind turbines". Your publication is well written and presents relevant work. I believe it should be published in this journal, and I only have minor suggestions that can hopefully improve the readability of your manuscript:

1. Abstract: I would have appreciated a slightly less technical abstract, where the reader gets a higher level overview of what your article is about. Also, some terms generated some confusion even in a technical expert like me. I later understood what they refer to, but I had to google to confirm what "lifetime reassessments" and "run-in times" referred to. I was more familiar with wording like "lifetime extension potential" and "initial transients". I would strongly recommend clearing these possible sources of confusion, especially from the abstract that will hopefully be read by many people.

2. Line 20: The load cases are lumped here. "here" where?

3. Line 42: lower occurring loads. Fatigue or peak loads?

4. Lines 42-47: a citation seems missing

5. Line 49: "of of", typo

6. Line 65: "known" typo

7. Line 71: I am more familiar with the wording "initial transients" rather than "run-in times"

8. Line 95: There is no action item here, but please note that FASTv8 is 10+ years old. I'd strongly recommend upgrading to the latest releases of OpenFAST to make your work more impactful

9. Line 255: I'd recommend referencing Table 1 here, it took me a while to understand what those forces and moments were

A well-written and easy to follow manuscript, which could however benefit from some further modifications. Please find further comments in the supplementary pdf file.