How does one interpret the ratings? Looks to me like there's a single critic who didn't rate it well on any aspect. Well, I found it informative. If that critic can do better, I would like to see hir work.
Incidentally, there's a link in there to David Kenyon's PhD thesis (late 2007)
337 pages without figures (omitted). I'm sure it would stir much debate/comment should people be inclined to wade through it - seems quite dismissive of the tanks then extant. Or maybe I got the wrong end of the stick in a brief skim? It's not a document meant to be skimmed,