Reviewer name and names of any other individual's who aided in reviewer	Keith Robison
Do you understand and agree to our policy of having open and named reviews, and having your review included with the published manuscript. (If no, please inform the editor that you cannot review this manuscript.)	Yes
Is the language of sufficient quality?	Yes
Please add additional comments on language quality to clarify if needed
Is there a clear statement of need explaining what problems the software is designed to solve and who the target audience is?	Yes
Additional Comments
Is the source code available, and has an appropriate Open Source Initiative license <a href="https://opensource.org/licenses" target="_blank">(https://opensource.org/licenses)</a> been assigned to the code?	No
Additional Comments	n/A
As Open Source Software are there guidelines on how to contribute, report issues or seek support on the code?	Yes
Additional Comments	N/A - no software presented
Is the code executable?	Unable to test
Additional Comments	N/A
Is installation/deployment sufficiently outlined in the paper and documentation, and does it proceed as outlined?	Unable to test
Additional Comments	N/A
Is the documentation provided clear and user friendly?	No
Additional Comments	N/A
Is there enough clear information in the documentation to install, run and test this tool, including information on where to seek help if required?	No
Additional Comments	N/A
Is there a clearly-stated list of dependencies, and is the core functionality of the software documented to a satisfactory level?	No
Additional Comments
Have any claims of performance been sufficiently tested and compared to other commonly-used packages?	Not applicable
Additional Comments
Is test data available, either included with the submission or openly available via cited third party sources (e.g. accession numbers, data DOIs)?	Yes
Additional Comments
Are there (ideally real world) examples demonstrating use of the software?	No
Additional Comments
Is automated testing used or are there manual steps described so that the functionality of the software can be verified?	No
Additional Comments
Any Additional Overall Comments to the Author	This is a useful presentation of an emerging sequencing platform. Given the complex nature of nanopore signals and the difficulty of decoding them, it has been a pattern with the prior nanopore platform that improvements in basecalling software have yielded significant changes in basecalling performance. Therefore, it would be highly advantageous if the manuscript listed which specific versions / revision numbers of the basecalling software were used so that these results are properly contextualized for comparison to future results which may use newer basecalling software. Ideally, the publication would include a link to git (or similar) repository with the complete pipeline used to generate the results
Recommendation	Minor Revisions