Reviewer name and names of any other individual's who aided in reviewer	Ole K. Tørresen
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?	No
Please add additional comments on language quality to clarify if needed	Almost every second sentence in the abstract would need work, and so is the rest of the manuscript.
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?	Yes
Additional Comments
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	General comments: The authors have created a chromosome-level genome assembly of bicolor angelfish using stLFR and HiC libraries. The language in this manuscript needs some work. After commenting on every second sentence in the abstract regarding some language matter, I saw that I couldn’t continue commenting all these matters. Please do a good clean-up in the language, so that it is easier to read. I’ll point out some issues during the manuscript, but will not find all and I can’t manage to point out all I do find. Specific comments: Line 19: «...special and beautiful two-color body” is a bit subjective. Maybe something like “…remarkable and striking two-color body” instead? Line 20: I know this is the abstract, but I don’t understand what “the mechanism of bicolor body” could mean. Maybe rephrase? Line 22: I’ve seen this many places, but it should be a lower-case k in kb, not upper case like Kb. The k stands for kilo which is a metric prefix meaning thousand (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metric_prefix). Line 25: “As we are known,” should be “as far as we know”. Line 27: “Future research” instead of “future researches”. Line 46: Which protocol are you talking about? Table 1: How can you end up with more “valid data” than “raw data”? Did you mix up something here? It looks consistent with the text, but there’s likely something wrong.
Any Additional Overall Comments to the Author
Recommendation	Minor Revision