The site reviewed is very much a work in progress. A time line indicating approximately when the other sections will be available would be helpful. The post HTML conversion editing could have been better. There needs to be greater effort to standardize presentations. Some articles use formal endnotes, others embedded notes.
Some articles have illustrations on the main article page, others have only hyperlinks.
A uniform use of thumbnails linked to larger images would have been more user friendly. Because of this lack of standardization and inadequate editing the site feels like it was put together very quickly, perhaps mainly to give the program a presence on the Web. A number of the articles, especially those of the editor, have appeared in print elsewhere, and so, all told, relatively little new material is presented in this site. Finally, it is a bit frustrating that contact information for the authors is not presented in one location. Only the article on the red skull has any of this information.