Groundwater flow to large diameter wells are solved by analytical and numerical methods as stated by the author. Only solutions based on groundwater movement equation with suitable initial and boundary conditions are physically plausible and sound and many alternatives of such formulations are available in the literature. After physical fundamentals rather complex formulations are solved either by analytical or numerical methodologies. The solution suggested by the author has the following drawbacks in the formulation. 1. The large-diameter well solutions for the configuration stated in his are available analytically and numerically and hence there is no need to use MODFLOW solution. The author is mistaken here to state that the numerical solution can be done only by MODFLOW software. 2. Practically available classical type-curve solutions are available in the literature and there is no need for such a classical problem solution by MODFLOW. Otherwise not only largediameter wells but any other groundwater flow to wells can be solved by MODFLOW software and therefore numerous technical notes can be published without any scientific innovation or modification. 3. In his derivation the author implies geometric similarity without any hydrodynamic consideration of the groundwater flow difference toward the circular and square wells. Square wells have corners where the groundwater flow lines cannot be described easily and therefore there are circular well solutions in the literature. It would have been better if the author could produce type curves for square or rectangular well conditions with the ready software of MODFLOW. 4. Eq. 1 is a geometrical similarity of cross-section equivalence, which does not mean that the groundwater movement around both cross sections becomes also equivalent in physical and groundwater movement senses. Hence, it does not meet the requirement of “equivalence of well drawdowns” and “equivalence of well storage contribution to the pumped discharge.” 5. The crunch point of all is Eq. 2 where the author makes another arbitrary equivalence between circular and square cross-section wells, which is not acceptable. Eq. 2 expresses the equivalence of well-face discharges in both cases. The left-hand side of this equation is acceptable but on the right-hand side the author makes another equivalence of well circumference for the square cross section as 2 a /2 . This implies that the equivalent well radius is equal to a /2