Hi Danny,
 
thanks for sending me the link.  One question here - are you aware of what the difference is between DR4 and DR5 of SINGS (as listed on the IRSA database)? This links back to the paper and whether you would need to justify why you dont use DR5 in the paper?
 
--> DR4=DR5 for the optical imaging.  I now use DR5 in the text to avoid confusion.
 
In terms of the paper I only had a few comments, which I've listed below. Overall it reads well and simple. My main concern is about the lack of science impact, but I guess the SED analysis paper will cover that. The other main comments I had concerned the correction of the figures -  several of the labels overlap the data points in some of the plots, such as the flux ratios (figure 7) and the SEDs (eg NGC3051 in Figure 4), and whether you would consider making available online the object aperture, the sky apertures and the star/contaminant masks? I found these incredibly useful for measuring the total gas masses when I did the comparison, and would be useful for people who wanted to measure in a comparative way the bulge luminosities or annuli etc of the KINGFISH galaxies.

--> I fixed the figures.  I like the idea of providing the apertures and masks.  I'll see if the editor thinks we should provide them as part of the online data contribution, or whether we should just provide a URL.  For now I've added a note to the manuscript that they will be provided with the electronic version of the journal article.

minor comments
ABSTRACT - can we state "Ultraviolet to radio" instead of ultraviolet/optical/infrared/submillimeter/radio which seems clumsy?
Also the radio is not mentioned in section 2, 3, 4 or 5, nor shown in Figure 4 so its not obvious that its there until looking at the tables - this currently feels like a lack

--> I changed the abstract.

Section 2
Suggested change: "Figure 1 demonstrates the sample's range of optical colors and near-infrared luminosities; a few galaxies reside in the red sequence near the top of the diagram but most of the sample spans the blue star-forming sequence."
In Figure 1, we could also plot the SDSS galaxies as contours when number density is high - it reduces the figure size and makes it easier to see.

--> I used your recommended wording.

Section 3
when we discuss the filters, the reference to CIGALE seems wrong as all this is is a compilation of data. In reality we should be stating "based on the publicly available filter listings for each instrument used in deriving the sample" (we could provide links as well).

Otherwise it should be "based on the filter profiles compiled by Noll et al. (2009) for use in the CIGALE SED fitting software. References for each of the profiles are given in ????" (the CIGALE software?)

--> I used a version of your second suggestion.

TABLES
NGC5457 GALEX errors are "***"
M81dw W3 errors are "***"

--> fixed