  Here I provide additional experimental information and criticise the
analysis, modelling, interpretation and claims presented in the recent paper
[Nature Communications 11, 4942 (2020)]. I argue that the authors have no clear
experimental evidence of Anderson localisation (as they claim) and their
numerical simulations are very far indeed from reproducing the experiment, as
stated in their article. Furthermore, some effects that are ascribed to real
physical mechanisms are revealed to be simply artefacts.
