This work compares the performance of two wind farm parameterizations in WRF for their skills at wake representation versus a large-eddy simulation. The analysis is thorough, relevant, and considers single and multiple turbine layouts and each atmospheric stability regime. The paper is very well written with compelling figures. This work is recommended for publication after the following minor suggestions and corrections are addressed.

The results section would benefit from the addition of numerical values throughout to help the reader understand what the authors mean in statements such as “nearly negligible,” “larger errors,” “considerable differences,” and “best agreement.” A few sentences that would benefit from such numerical additions are explicitly stated below, but a comprehensive review of the manuscript in support of the addition of numerical findings is recommended.

In the discussion section, it would be of interest to tie the results to wind generation by employing the reference turbine’s power curve. For example, it would be interesting to see what the sensitivities in generation or capacity factor estimates over the analysis hours are relative to the sensitivities noted for each WFP, correction factor, and length scale.

Line 124: “stated” should be “state”

Line 133: Recommend adding some discussion as to why MYNN was selected as the PBL scheme for this analysis, along with speculation based on the literature on how an alternate scheme might impact your analysis and results.

Line 217: Suggest adding numerical values throughout this paragraph to help the reader understand what is meant by “significant differences” and “considerable differences”.

Line 259: Should the word “and” be removed from this line?

Line 308: “Fitch-0.25, Fitch-0.5, and Fitch-0.75 overestimate the added TKE by the turbines under all atmospheric conditions” By how much do they overestimate?

Line 318: “. Fitch-0.5 and Fitch-0.75 greatly overestimate the LES reference” Again, by how much?

本手稿的作者将 WRF 模型中两种广泛使用的 WFP 与使用同一模型执行的涡轮机尾流的 LES 进行了比较。评估了 Fitch 方案和显式尾流参数化在中性、不稳定和稳定大气稳定性条件下表示双涡轮风电场布局中的风速和湍流动能 (TKE) 的能力。本文讨论的主题很有趣，而且论文结构良好且易于理解。我衷心祝贺这篇手稿的作者，我认为在稍作修改后应该考虑出版。

我认为，这些手稿值得在以下问题上进行修改。

Q1. 第 120 行。请添加一些解释，说明为什么选择 2% 作为阈值。

Q2 第 215-225 行 应提供更多定量结果，尤其是在描述显着差异和相当大差异时。

Q3。第320-325行 文本中应提供定量值，以显示最佳一致性和良好对应关系。