In my opinion, the study is original and such datasets are needed; also, the approaches implementing Sentinel data in these tasks are important to develop. However, I have some major concerns regarding the manuscript which are described below. 

In the abstract, the authors state that other datasets are characterized by coarse resolution, while their dataset is, in fact, very coarse (0.5 degrees, approximately 55km). I suggest rephrasing or clarifying this statement. Also, why is the final calendar characterized by such low resolution when Sentinel data used in this study have a resolution of 10m? 

Furthermore, I have concerns regarding the accuracy assessment of the calendar. The dates of transplanting and harvesting are validated with the Rice Atlas, which has a national or subnational resolution, correct? It seems, therefore, inappropriate to validate the proposed calendar using such data. 

In my opinion, the paper is too long, especially the discussion section, where some wordings and repetitions could be eliminated. The authors should reconsider the most crucial outcomes or applications of their approach and dataset. The limitations section, which is important, can be condensed into one or two paragraphs, for example. Some parts of the introduction can also be shortened. The methods are complex, resulting in a lengthy chapter; however maybe the authors might consider moving certain sections to supplementary materials? 

Finally, the GEE/Colab code is missing. 

Other comments: 

• The link to dataset should be at the end of abstract also.  

• In the abstract and in the whole manuscript I suggest changing units of area from 5.3 x106 to millions of kilometres, for example 5.3 mln of km. 

• Line 106: rephrase to something like “The analysed area.... (Fig 1)” 

• Figure 1 – so the study area includes all the countries shown in grey, with bold black borders – it is not fully clear from the figure, maybe add to legend. Also consider adding country names to the map. 

• Line 130 – what is the average size of a paddy field in these regions, is 20 samples enough to represent it for such large grid? 

• Line 135 – the codes/notebooks should be included in the paper. 

• Line 160 – these are widely used metrics; I think their equations are redundant   

• Lines 197-205 – this is very complex and somehow hard to follow. Maybe it can be put into a table and moved it to supplementary materials. Also, why such dates were used? 

• Line 200 – what is EVI arc? 

• Line 207 – that part as the equation format 

• Line 210 – From R: “To cite package 'cardidates' in publications use:  Rolinski, S., Horn, H., Petzoldt, T., Paul, L. (2007). Identification of cardinal dates in phytoplankton time series to enable the analysis of long-term trends. Oecologia 153, 997--1008. doi:10.1007/s00442-007-0783-2" 

• Figure 3 description: there is no grey area in the charts 

• Line 265 – cite the ‘circular’ package properly 

• The figures 4-7 – parts of the figures’ captions are redundant as they include the information already provided in the figure (e.g., what is in upper, middle lower panels etc.) 

• Lines 303-305 – maybe add median dates to the figures as well  

• Figure 9 caption – there is no grey dotted line