Comments on "Updated photometry for the SINGS/KINGFISH samples of
nearby galaxies", 27 Jul 2016:

The paper is beautiful, extremely well written, concise, and a pleasure to read!
Below only a few (trivial) suggestions which you may take or leave as you wish... 
(given in order of appearance in text).

*** Abstract:
Do we need to define "KINGFISH" and "SINGS"? (if yes, then we might also need
to define all the other acronyms which would be prohibitive??)

-- Done

*** 1. Introduction:
par 1: comparators --> comparison samples

--Done

is suspect, for example, since the data were originally -->
is suspect, since the data were originally 

--Done

*** 2. Galaxy sample:

e.g., Figure 1 of this work...
maybe need a sentence to describe this figure? On first reading, i missed the
brief reference to it and then had to go back and figure out what the figure
meant...

--Done

*** 3. Observations and data processing:

we focus the below discussion on important -->
we focus the following discussion on important 

--Done

Sometimes not enough standard star observations -->
Sometimes insufficient numbers of standard star observations 
(or 
Sometimes insufficient standard star observations) 

--Done

were taken, sometimes -->
were taken; sometimes 

--Done

were saturated, and some of the frames -->
were saturated; and some of the frames 

--Done

for these 61 + 6 = 67 galaxies for this publication -->
for these 61 + 6 = 67 galaxies in this paper

maybe need to define $\epsilon{\rm cal}$ and $f_\nu$, even just
briefly

maybe also say "The PACS fractional calibration uncertainties..."
(i.e., add "fractional")

--Done

to avoid containing any galaxy emisssion (see Figure 1 of Dale et al. 2012). -->
to avoid any galaxy emisssion (see Figure 1 of Dale et al. 2012). 
or
to be devoid of any galaxy emisssion (see Figure 1 of Dale et al. 2012). 

--Done

*** 4. Results:

par 2, describing Fig. 2, last sentence:
weren't the problems with saturated standard stars avoided in the new calibration?
Maybe try to imply that any problems with the comparison are due to the *old*
photometry, not with shortcomings in the *new* calibration?

--Yes, thank you for helping me to clarify this.  I rewrote to better implicate the
old photometry.

Fig. 5 is nice, but maybe scatter plots showing a comparison of the two quantities
would be more visually insightful?

we have five free parameters in our SED fitting (stell) whereas ?
what is "stell"??

--Removed

Table 1:
i checked all the distances for the KINGFISH galaxies, and found a (minor)
problem for NGC5713: it is given as 21.37 Mpc, whereas in Daniela's table, in
Kennicutt et al. 2011 (KINGFISH definition paper), and in Hunt et al. 2015
(radial profiles), it is given as 21.40 Mpc.  Maybe change in Table just to be
consistent with earlier work?

--Weird.  My latest version of Daniela's table shows 21.37.  Maybe Rob rounded
to 21.4.  I changed it to 21.40.