This article describes a dataset that could be valuable to researchers, with high-quality
experimental phasing information for 182 human genomes. Some revisions to the manuscript
would make it a stronger submission:

While the manuscript includes detailed descriptions of the sample and library preparation, there
is no description of the software tools that were used to process the sequence data, generate SNP
calls, and perform phasing. There are some details about SNP filtering included in the legends of
figures 3 and 5, but those filtering criteria differ between the two legends, and it isn't clear why
they are different or whether either were applied to the final set of results. It's critical to include
information about the bioinformatic pipeline so that readers understand how the data were
processed.

Figure 1 could be made more informative by adding numbers.

There are some discordant numbers in the figure legends that are not explained. Figure 2
includes 229 libraries, while figure 4 includes 233 libraries from 182 samples. Are all of the
extra libraries replicates? It would be useful to have a supplemental table that describes the
libraries that were generated, including things like the sample names, ethnicities, and some
summary statistics.

In the legend of figure 2, the descriptions for parts c and d are in the wrong order.

Also in figure 2, the use of "Contig N50" in the axes labels may be misleading, as it's more
typically used to describe de novo sequence assembly rather than phased haplotypes in a
reference genome.

In line 53 on page 3, "The remaining 2.3 million variants not found in these datasets represent
predominantly rare population variants and to a much lesser extent de novo mutations and false
positive errors." It isn't clear what the basis is for this statement.

A few minor corrections:
Line 30 on page 2, "co-bracoded"

Line 49 on page 3, "both higher a higher amount"

Line 52 on page 4, "this metric is used to polymerase induced" - missing word?

Line 20 on page 5, "MaxExculisve"

Level of interest
Please indicate how interesting you found the manuscript:

An article of importance in its field .

Quality of written English
Please indicate the quality of language in the manuscript:

Acceptable.

Declaration of competing interests
Please complete a declaration of competing interests, considering the following questions:

1. Have you in the past five years received reimbursements, fees, funding, or salary from an
organisation that may in any way gain or lose financially from the publication of this
manuscript, either now or in the future?
2. Do you hold any stocks or shares in an organisation that may in any way gain or lose
financially from the publication of this manuscript, either now or in the future?
3. Do you hold or are you currently applying for any patents relating to the content of the
manuscript?
4. Have you received reimbursements, fees, funding, or salary from an organization that
holds or has applied for patents relating to the content of the manuscript?
5. Do you have any other financial competing interests?
6. Do you have any non-financial competing interests in relation to this paper?

If you can answer no to all of the above, write 'I declare that I have no competing interests'
below. If your reply is yes to any, please give details below.

I declare that I have no competing interests.

I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal. I understand that my name will be included
on my report to the authors and, if the manuscript is accepted for publication, my named report
including any attachments I upload will be posted on the website along with the authors'
responses. I agree for my report to be made available under an Open Access Creative Commons
CC-BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). I understand that any comments
which I do not wish to be included in my named report can be included as confidential comments
to the editors, which will not be published.

I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal.

Authors' response to reviews: (https://static-content.springer.com/openpeerreview/art%3A10.1186%2Fs13742-016-0148-z/13742_2016_148_AuthorComment_V1.pdf)

Level of interest
Please indicate how interesting you found the manuscript:

An article of importance in its field .

Quality of written English
Please indicate the quality of language in the manuscript:

Acceptable .

Declaration of competing interests
Please complete a declaration of competing interests, considering the following questions:
1. Have you in the past five years received reimbursements, fees, funding, or salary from an
organisation that may in any way gain or lose financially from the publication of this
manuscript, either now or in the future?
2. Do you hold any stocks or shares in an organisation that may in any way gain or lose
financially from the publication of this manuscript, either now or in the future?
3. Do you hold or are you currently applying for any patents relating to the content of the
manuscript?
4. Have you received reimbursements, fees, funding, or salary from an organization that
holds or has applied for patents relating to the content of the manuscript?
5. Do you have any other financial competing interests?
6. Do you have any non-financial competing interests in relation to this paper?

If you can answer no to all of the above, write 'I declare that I have no competing interests'
below. If your reply is yes to any, please give details below.

I declare that I have no competing interests.

I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal. I understand that my name will be included
on my report to the authors and, if the manuscript is accepted for publication, my named report
including any attachments I upload will be posted on the website along with the authors'
responses. I agree for my report to be made available under an Open Access Creative Commons
CC-BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). I understand that any comments
which I do not wish to be included in my named report can be included as confidential comments
to the editors, which will not be published.

I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal.

Authors' response to reviews: (https://static-content.springer.com/openpeerreview/art%3A10.1186%2Fs13742-016-0148-z/13742_2016_148_AuthorComment_V2.pdf)