The authors present an extensive experimental dataset from a collection of wind-tunnel campaigns aimed at wind farm control studies.  The experiments concern actuated, instrumented, scaled wind turbine models under controlled ocnditions. The data set includes a vast number of parameters, from inflow velocity, to turbine power and loads, to wake velocities, to actuator commands. The data set is not new per se, as it has been presented in a number of publications in the past, but it is made available in its entirety and presented with the required detail for the first time. Measurement uncertainties and data corrections are presented in detail.



The data set is unique and has the potential to be a reference case for wind farm control in the future. 



The experimental data are also accompanied by a series of numerical models, from CAD to ALM-LES model of the turbines. This is also nice to have, as potential users of the dataset can also make use of one of the available numerical models, should they see  this fit. At the same time, I expect this will create a bias, with most future users employing the same inflow/ALM etc model. Since no model is perfect, this is not ideal, but this is no reason not include the numerical models. 



One aspect the authors could consider is the continuous update/modification of the data description. A data description article review can obviously not check whether the description is entirely complete, or if something can be improved, in the same way an actual user of the data set could. The authors could consider making this explicit and ask for feedback in the paper. 



Some minor comments are also included inthe attached file. 

Review of ‘Experimental wind tunnel dataset of wake and turbine measurements for wind farm control’

This article presents an extensive open access wind tunnel dataset of wake, aerodynamic and load measurements under a range of wake control strategies. The dataset can prove useful for the wind energy community for numerical model validation. I would recommend the article for publication given the following comments can be addressed.

Major Comments

1. Some details of the measurement equipment are probably too much for the article. For instance, from my perspective, adding the model number for each component in section 2.2 is not necessary. Similarly, sections 2.2.3, 2.2.4 and some details in the beginning of section 2.2.6 can be omitted from the main manuscript. These details could be provided as supplementary material. The intended users of the dataset are numerical modelers – burdening them with too much technical details of the experimental setup is probably not necessary.
2. On a similar note, why is there a need for section 3.1 in the article? Could this be better suited in supplementary notes?
3. Given the length that the authors go to in order to explain the experimental setup, it seems rather superficial that they simply assume that the yaw and tilt biases are stationary in section 3.4.1. There should be some verification/validation for this assumption.
4. In comparison to the details provided on the experimental setup and execution, the description of the datasets seems rather brief. For a potential user of the data, this section might be of the most interest. I would have expected the authors to provide details of the experimental conditions for each dataset. For instance, lines 595-597 mention that turbines are operated under a range of control conditions. However, no further details on control strategies are presented. Same can be said of other subsections in this section. I understand that the user can consult the metadata on it, however, given the detail given to the earlier sections, I would have expected a nice and clean overview of experimental conditions for each campaign.
5. Section 5 does not have a proper motivation. If the intention of the article is to provide an open access wind tunnel dataset for independent development/validation of numerical codes, providing numerical implementation in some existing codes adds a bias factor, and may unintentionally redirect the potential user towards using these codes rather than independent development/testing/validation.
6. Finally, it needs to be pointed out that as detailed in section 4, the dataset presented in this work is not ‘new’ but is a collection of many experiments (which are very much appreciated) going back as far as 2016. Still, the conclusion starts with ‘This paper presents a new open-access experimental dataset …’, which seems a bit contradictory and incorrect to me. I think the article should be explicit about which experiments are new or unique to it, and which are old. This also brings in the question that does making a collection of existing datasets open access constitute the basis for a data description article, or should it be a new dataset that has not been published/accessible before? Perhaps the handling editor can be a better judge on that than me, but it is a question that needs to be addressed.

Minor Comments

1. G1 rotor is first mentioned in section 2.1.1 without any prior/proper introduction. For a reader unfamiliar with this rotor, it is difficult to relate/contextualize the boundary layer characteristics with the rotor. For instance, on first read, I do not know what the hub/top/bottom height of G1 is, so the turbulence intensity number with respect to it is not very intuitive.
2. Section 2.1.2, line 124: what is the distance between the pitot tube and the wind farm cluster? Is the tube sufficiently upstream such that it is not influenced by the blockage of the rotor?
3. I think some of the variables are missing from the nomenclature section. For example, I could not find P_R in the nomenclature.
4. In fig 7 it may be beneficial to add a 1:1 line as well.
5. I would have appreciated a few figures visualizing some key data from the dataset as well.