Dear Prof. Schmidt,

As you can see, one of the reviewers is happy with the changes you made to the paper, but has some additional minor comments and corrections. Unfortunately, the other reviewer was not able to look into the revision (for personal reasons that are fully justified). I had a careful look myself, and find that you adequately addressed his comments. Please address the comments of the second reviewer in a revised version of your manuscript, so that I can proceed with accepting the manuscript for publication

Some additional comments from my side:
1. I would agree with the "major concern" expressed by the second reviewer in his second review. It would be good to take care not to suggest that the RL case may lead to a trustworthy industrial model. In particular, your last phrase in the discussion could be interpreted like that. Please consider rewording... (unless you strongly believe that the RL case can lead to good models)
2. Similar to specific comment #10 of the first reviewer, I was also looking for a figure and disappointed to only find a table. Please consider adding a figure (possibly also keeping the table).
3. As also pointed out by reviewer 2, I expect that "wake recovery" will be interpreted by many in the community as "turbine wake recovery", while I believe you mean farm wake recovery. Please add "farm" whenever this ambiguity may rise
4. Thank you for changing blocking to blockage as requested by both reviewers. Nevertheless, maybe it could be good to briefly point out (e.g. around line 45) that the mountain wave community uses the term "blocking" instead for slow down in front of mountains.

Kind regards,
Johan Meyers

Dear Prof. Smith,

Thank you for incorporating the final requested changes into your manuscript. I'm now happy to accept the manuscript for publication.

Sincerely,
Johan Meyers

Dear Ronald Smith,
Thank you for publishing with WES and thank you for improving the manuscript through some iterations.
Your paper is accepted, but I would like you to make sure that units are roman and variables are italic. It's just the opposite in your tables and many other places. (And don't write "Newtons" but "N" in (6)). It may confuse some readers that you use GW for gravity wave and giga Watt. Maybe speed out "gravity wave"?
Thanks, Jakob Mann, Chief Editor WES