oggers,
The poor guy's written a decidedly mediocre conference proceeding that advances Mr Stokes' work from the 19th century not one jot.
If you can't see that, then you need more than a hundred-word comment to explain.
I'm not the referee, and professional courtesy would indicate that he not be needlessly harangued. There's nothing grossly incorrect in the paper, but it's neither novel nor insightful. By including unnecessary terms in the gravity, and ignoring the larger degree of ignorance about the density profile, and lift effects, it's not very helpful to the discussion about falling objects.