The research topic is well presented in the introduction, and the abstract clearly states the study objectives. The article presents a new methodology that is well adapted to the study of the wake of floating offshore wind turbines. This approach consists in the deployment of wind LiDARs. The scientific results are very promising. The results are produced through the analysis of a new and valuable dataset, as a result of a rigorous experimental setup.

Despite the very promising dataset, the article struggles to clearly transmit the key messages of the article to the reader. The article’s structure is confusing amid mistakes, repetitions, and an unnecessary count of 22 figures, some of which are not presented or described in the text. Furthermore, the study does not comment and discuss the results at sufficient depths. For example, the authors seem to observe contradicting effects of the yaw on the center of the mean wake center (Sect. 4.4) and struggle to explain the seemingly absent correlation between shear, vear with the induction factor (Sect. 4.2) but do not sufficiently investigate possible explanations, and do not bring these issues to the discussion and conclusion. This is unfortunate, as these observations should be highlighted, so as to allow for improvement in future work.

In conclusion, I believe that this article should be published. However, major corrections are required in order to improve language, structure, and physical interpretations. I advise the authors to thoroughly read the article again to find possible typos, and provide a more concise and dynamic description of the work. Please find my comments and suggestions below.

Review of “Revealing inflow and wake conditions of a 6MW floating turbine” by Angelou et al. provides details of the first ever wake measurements on a floating offshore wind turbine.  This has generated a lot of buzz in the research community and commend the authors for getting this timely paper out for review.  Overall, I think this is a very interesting paper and provides a lot of interesting physics on how the wake propagates offshore on a floating offshore wind turbine.  The authors mainly summarize that the transverse profile of the wake can be described by a self-similar wind speed deficit, following a Guassian distribution and support the hypothesis that the TI plays a major role in wake recovery.  The theory proposed is sound, although the devil is in the details, and it would be good for the authors to clarify some of the below questions to make the paper clearer.  We can’t expect one paper to answer all our questions on wake propagation for a floating offshore wind turbine, but this is a great start, and this paper should be published after some of the comments are addressed.  Reviewer #1 has provided an extensive list of comments on the paper, some which I also share so will not duplicate them here.

Major Comments:

1. Variations of 1 degree of the nacelle for the scanning lidar data can be significant, can result in +/- 25 m height difference in beams at a range of 1500 m. Yes, for the structure of that size itself the stability is great, but for the scanning lidars, it might not be ideal, unless active motion compensation was performed.  There is some preliminary analysis done for one case study, but a more thorough assessment on how this motion would affect the results/conclusions would be helpful.
2. Can you mention about the turbine blade pitch angles, tip speed ratios etc. during these conditions? How would have the blade pitching effect the wake here? Does the blade pitching only happen above rated winds like a typical wind turbine or is the motion of the turbine coupled with blade pitching somehow?
3. What were the sea state conditions during the study period or cases analyzed? Do you have any sea surface temperature measurements for estimating atmospheric stability along with air temperature measurements (say using a Bulk Richardson number estimates)?
4. Making the conclusions very specific to this type of wind turbine would be important. As the wake recovery can also depend on the control strategy (not just the blades but the entire structure) and type of mooring of the floating offshore wind turbine, which is not discussed here.  So would recommend stressing that this result is not generic for all floating offshore wind turbines.

Minor questions:

1. Figure 2: Why is the pitch angle reducing post rated wind speeds? Is there any active control of the floating structure?  It was not clear from the paper.
2. Why was 0.32 Hz chosen for the scanning lidar time averaging?
3. Appendix B has no text but just a figure. Can you please provide some explanation here?
4. There are some formatting issues, so would recommend authors to carefully check the figures are being referenced and discussed. Also, noted some consistency issues in the paper, hoping all these can be sorted out prior to the second round of revisions.