Reviewer name and names of any other individual's who aided in reviewer	Jonathan Kreplak
Do you understand and agree to our policy of having open and named reviews, and having your review included with the published papers. (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
Are all data available and do they match the descriptions in the paper?	Yes
Additional Comments
Are the data and metadata consistent with relevant minimum information or reporting standards? See GigaDB checklists for examples <a href="http://gigadb.org/site/guide" target="_blank">http://gigadb.org/site/guide</a>	Yes
Additional Comments
Is the data acquisition clear, complete and methodologically sound?	Yes
Additional Comments
Is there sufficient detail in the methods and data-processing steps to allow reproduction?	No
Additional Comments	For "Phylogenetic tree construction and divergence time estimation", 64 single copy orthologs are selected, they should be included in a supplementary table to be able to fully reproduct the analysis. Also, Supplementary table S9 should be related to fossil calibrations but show the length of chromosome.
Is there sufficient data validation and statistical analyses of data quality?	Yes
Additional Comments
Is the validation suitable for this type of data?	Yes
Additional Comments
Is there sufficient information for others to reuse this dataset or integrate it with other data?	Yes
Additional Comments
Any Additional Overall Comments to the Author	This work is a state of the art assembly for Vicia Sativa and will be useful to understand how the Vicia genome size has expanded. The scientific part is lacking a few elements that could boost the manuscript. On Vicia Faba, satellite associated to centromeres are well-studied. It 's interesting to check and could confirm that the assembly is robust. Functional annotation seems solid but I was surprised by the low number of genes annotated with a GO using interpro. (Table S6) I would have expected an higher number. Is there an error ? eggNOG-mapper is also giving a GO assignation but the percentage isn't reported in the table. Are they similar ? More disappointing for me, orthologs analysis between species is well done and sufficient but missing a few sequenced legumes genome like P.sativum. Also, M.truncatula have a newer version that the one used. A ressource like legum federation (https://www.legumefederation.org/ ) could have been helpful to select the most adequate genome for this analysis. Figures : One of the main figure (fig2) doesn't seems right. LTR (V) represent 60% of the genome sequence but appear as abundant as TIR (VI) which are a subclass of Transposons (less than 16% of the genome). This is due to the fact that scale is different for each track. A common scale (like a density) must be used . Also, you should add TIR percentage in table S3. For me, this figure isn't informative enough and must be rework. Fig3 (D) green line legend is false and should be changed
Recommendation	Minor Revision