Abstract:

Need to spell out 11HUGS and ANGST acronyms, or delete.

--I ultimately decided to spell them out.

Can you add a clause after "standard correlation for starburst galaxies" 
saying something like ", suggesting that reprocessing by dust is less 
important in the lower mass systems than dominate the LVL sample" (or 
whatever -- just something that points to the scientific conclusion.

--Done

Not clear what "the starburst relation" refers to.  "correlates with" 
would be better than "corresponds to".

--Done

Intro:

"our nearest neighbors" (since not all ANGST galaxies are star-forming)

"based on optical spectroscopy, GALEX UV, and Spitzer infrared imaging.."

"studies that seek to probe...regime and that require..."

"...Volume galaxies that have acquired..."  (which = "by the way", so 
not appropriate here)

"...the stellar light that has been absorbed..." (same which/that issue)

--all adopted


The Sample:

"Nearby Galaxy Survey"

No space in M81.

"...in the M81 group and Sculptor filament."

"...to provide uniform stellar photometry.." (not complete since we 
don't resolve all the stars, or cover all the area)

pg 6: "...160 micron fluxes from Table XXX below."

--all adopted


Section 3.2:

"...targets in the photometry mode is less efficient than in the scan mode."

--done


Section 4:

"...aperture, since 3.6 microns is the bandpass within which Spitzer is 
most sensitive and stars are brightest."

--done

Add 2MASS vs LVL images of UGC8245 to figure 4, which will make the 
point even more strongly.

--The 2MASS emission is at such a low surface brightness that including such a figure would not be interesting.

"we have independently extracted 2MASS fluxes..."

--done

"...looking for objects that are Halpha-rich"

--done

"...very faint and have negligible imact on global flux..."

--done


Section 5.4:

"...-to-TIR ratios cling remarkably..."

--done


Section 5.5:

"...differential effects that young..."

--done 


Figure 5:

Might be clearer to use "2MASS" rather than XSC in axis labels and 
titles, and LVL vs "us".  At the least, define "XSC" in the caption.

--done


Figure 7:

I don't quite get the middle panel, which seems to say that galaxies 
with larger FIR fluxes have more eflux missing from IRAS (i.e. more cold 
dust).  I'd have guessed the opposite.

--That's a perceptive comment.  Hmm...we know that ~2/3 of LVL are dwarfs/irregulars, and those are hotter than average.  It must be that the brightest galaxies are colder than average.

Figures 8 and 9 didn't reproduce properly in the PDF.

--I haven't been able to fix this (and that's why I also posted the .ps version of the manuscript).  I'll keep trying to fix this, but presumably the journal will have no problems compiling everything.