- in Section 3.2, par 2 you describe the pipeline processing.  A statement about whether the difference between HIPE v11.1.0 and v14.0.0 matters would be useful.

--> Done

- Section 3.3: the psf for WISE is correct if this is the single frame images.  The image atlas has been further blurred.  Maybe note that you are referring to the single frame images (which I assume you are).  

--> Done

- Section 4.1: did the updates resolve the MIPS/PACS issue?  If they did, that seems like a big enough deal to warrant a sentence or two?

--> Good question.  The updates moved things around a bit, but there isn't any better agreement between MIPS and PACS.  Before the MIPS 70um (160um) fluxes were 3% (6%) larger; now they are 6% (4%) smaller (larger).  

- Section 4.2: It sounds like you are fixing the slope and Umax for the DL07 models - it would be good to list what those are fixed to.  I also wasn't sure how the dust-to-stellar mass parameter works in practice - does this just adjust the relative importance of a fixed stellar SED shape?

--> I've added a note explaining the fixed parameters.  Yes, the stellar-to-dust just quantifies the relative importance of the fixed stellar SED.

- Section 4.2: Are you using the updated DL07 with the 0.0-10.0% qPAH range or the original version with 0.4-4.5%?  It might be worth mentioning this since the dust modeling paper that Bruce is working on will use the newer models with the full range.

--> For both this paper and Dale+2012, I used the updated DL07 that goes up to q_PAH=12%.  You can see this, for example, in Figure 5.  I stated in Dale+2012 that q_PAH ranged from 0 to 12%.  I've how added such a comment to this paper, too.

- Section 4.2: It might also be worth mentioning the fact that several studies have now shown the factor of ~2 offset in dust mass from the DL07 models and you aren't making a correction.  Here are links:
- http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016A%26A...586A.132P
- http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015ApJ...814....3D

--> Done

- Should probably list the E(B-V) source in Table 1

--> Done

Questions:
- In section 3.1 you describe the recalibration of the ground based data and I was wondering if you planned to release the updated maps?  If so, is it worth including a link or info in the paper?

--> If we did this I think we should just go straight to NED.  That's a good suggestion.

- for future talk purposes, I would be happy to make a version of figure 1 with labels for each galaxy - mind sending me the file?

--> Done