Following the comments from the reviewers, the editor suggests to reconsider the paper after major revisions.

In particular, the author should add more details on the revised version of the manuscript on the following topics :

1- Landslide inventory :
Impact of the 8 months delay between the earthquake and the mapping of the landslides ? What are the associated uncertainties ? What about re-vegetation of the areas ?

How are coalescent landslides mapped ? The use of the « split » tool (line 125) should be explained in more details.

Pre- and post-earthquake landslides inventories : the influence of pre-earthquake landslide inventory has to be shown explicitely as suggested by reviewer 2.
Comments provided by the author on the supplementary material to questions from reviewer 2 could serve as a basis to improve this topic on the manuscript.

2- area-volume scaling laws: As highlighted by reviewer 2, are the area-volume scaling laws all valid for the types of movements included in the current landslide inventory ? This should be checked and shown in the paper. Besides, are the area-volume scaling laws all valid for landslides identified by their « source area + deposit » ?

The authors should further comment on their choices of the 6 laws and add one for rockfalls as suggested by reviewer 2. Comments provided by the author on the supplementary material to questions from reviewer 2 could serve as a basis to improve this topic on the manuscript.

3- Quantitative relation between LAP / LND and ESI-07 (line 210) : according to this editor, it is not clearly outlined in the paper. Besides, isn’t the correlation between LAP and ESI-07 expected because both parameters depend on landslide area ?

4- Comparison to other case studies : is the Wenchuan landslide inventory a good candidate for this comparison. To this editor, it appears that this event has specific characteristics that do not mimic most of the earthquake-triggered landslides inventories worldwide. Therefore, work presented in particular in Fig. 6 raises questions. Besides, what is the purpose of comparing two very different intensity scales (larger densities of landslides in Wenchuan require additional classes in the chinese intensity scale) ?

5- Discussion : As suggested by reviewer 1, the quality of the paper would be enhanced if the author separates results from discussion, adding a discussion section focusing on more aspects, such as data, methods, results, and comparing with previous work to analyze the advantages and disadvantages of this work. In addition, there is a need to have a prospect for future work. Comments provided by the author on the supplementary material to questions from reviewer 1 could serve as a basis to improve this topic on the manuscript.

The editor suggests that the author make the additional following corrections before publication :
- Line 25 : distinction between « primary effects » and « ground shaking » ?
- Lines 187 and 190 : fig.4 instead of fig. 3
- Lines 193-194 : could the author add a plot showing the comparison between predictions of landslides occurrence from USGS model and the true distribution of failures in the paper or in the supplementary material to support this statement ?
- In LAP, fig.4, add %
- ESI-07 degrees are based on landslide volumes categories defined by ranges of 1 order of magnitude span. Changes in the AV laws does not imply a change in the resulting volumes by one order of magnitude. That may explain why modifying the AV law does not change the final distribution of ESI-07 local intensity (cf. maps of Fig.5). Observed differences between the ESI-07 maps associated to the different laws are related to landslides whose volumes are close to the upper and lower boundaries of the categories defined by the ESI-07 degree scale. Therefore the comment of lines 215-216 should be modified accordingly.
- Fig5 : complete the legend to describe what plots a to g show. Same for plot h.
- Lines 305-306 : as mentionned by the author, we can not exclude that the higher number of landslides in the Sabah earthquake is only due to the fact that the inventory was realized 8 months later, therefore incorporating also remobilizations. This leads to comparisons with other earthquakes being treated with caution.
- Table 4 : are LAP values given in this table in % ? If so, please add « % » in the legend. Are more than 2 digits meaningful ?
- Line 314 : LAP may better represent ESI-07 because ESI-07 is based on volume and volume on area, right ?
- Line 360 : the meaning of this sentence is not clear to the editor.
- Fig. 9 : it should be explained into more details : how were selected the boundaries of each ESI-07 scale for LND parameter for instance ? How can we tell looking at Fig. 8 ? The median value is only one parameter : therefore is it used to define the lower or the upper boundary of each ESI-07 class ?

The editor acknowledges that the author has improved the quality of the paper by making the requested changes. Therefore the editor suggests that the paper can be published as is.