Hi Danny,

It's great to see this manuscript and thank you for including me at a potential author. If I make a meaningful contribution, then please include me as an author, but otherwise don't include me (I don't want to be a "passenger"). 

I quickly scanned the paper now and noticed a couple of curious things, starting with Figure 7. Firstly, the dotted line is exactly on 1.00. Shouldn't it be offset just slightly? 

--> I state in the figure caption that the dotted line represents the ratio for a 5000K blackbody only for the top two panels.  i.e., I left the dotted line at 1.00 for the bottom panel since those wavelengths aren't relevant for a stellar blackbody continuum.

Secondly, the effective wavelength of the WISE W4 filter is actually closer to 23 um than 22.4 um, due to the actual RSR not matching the lab measured RSR. I wrote a paper on this as it drove me nuts when I was doing SED fitting (http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014arXiv1411.5444B) as I was getting weird flux densities for objects like Arp 220 and NGC 6240. 

You can see the impact of the RSR error in your plots, where the WISE W4 flux densities are systematically higher than the MIPS 24 um flux densities for star forming galaxies (whereas it should be the other way around for these galaxies). For example, NGC 4631, NGC 4736, NGC 4826 and NGC 5033 - all plotted in the right-hand side of Figure 4 on Page 30. Correcting for the effective wavelength fixes this - it doesn't change the WISE W4 Vega magnitudes but makes the AB magnitudes and flux densities fainter. 

--> Thanks.  I checked with Jarrett who confirmed we are using the latest W4 calibration.  I've added a note that your 2014 paper suggests a W4 central wavelength of 22.8um.