This paper is describing a new experimental dynamic stall dataset obtained for a commonly used airfoil in IEA 15 and 22MW reference wind turbines and other studies. Experiments are in good quality, the data covers a wide operational range assessing Reynolds number, reduced frequency, oscillating frequency and amplitude effects for negative, linear and positive lift regions. This dataset helps improving the understanding of wind turbine airfoils' dynamic stall behavior and has potential to be a new source for calibrating dynamic stall models used in wind turbine design or validating numerical models. The structure of the paper is good, motivation is well described and valid. Experimental setup and execution is also described well. However, there are a number of points which require significant improvements. These are namely:

• Some of the measured quantities such as drag, moment and cases with zigzag tape are not included although introduced,
• The results section, data analysis and interpretation, is full of errors and needs significant improvement,
• Clarifications in some of the literature included is needed and some literature about the existing dynamic stall airfoil experiments (NREL for instance) should be added,

Due to the importance and the quality of the dataset, this paper could be given an opportunity to improve these aspects.

More detailed review and specific questions can be found in the document enclosed.

The presented work provides valuable insights for wind turbine blade analysis and design. It is anticipated that further research will extend this study to address additional aspects of unsteady aerodynamics relevant to wind turbine performance and troubleshooting, including the behavior of thicker airfoils and unsteady aerodynamics at higher angles of attack. 

Listed below are some typographical minor errors that were found in the manuscript. It would be grateful that you correct them. Thank you. 

Page 13:

“... is only attached for for the Rec = 5 × 10^5 case …”

Duplicate “for for” should be corrected as Single "for"

Page 17:

“... the stall is classified as trailing edge, with the separation point fastly moving upstream …”

“fastly” is nonstandard or archaic. Probably “quickly” or “rapidly” may be btter technically. 

Page 20:

“… with a chord length of c = 600m and height of h = 1246mm …”

Missing space or unit identifier: “600 m” suggests 600 meters which is obviously wrong; they mean 600 mm. Probably a typo: “600 mm”.