On second thought, I'd ask that you just give your final evaluation of the article the next time you look at this. If you think the article fails in its current state solely because of the dead url, I disagree, but that's fine. Given the pace at which our discussion is moving, however, I think renominating it and getting a fresh review seems like the fastest route to its revision and passage. This review is just moving too slowly, has become too adversarial, and seems to me too disconnected from the GA criteria for effective collaboration to be possible.
Sorry this didn't work out better. I do appreciate your improvements to the articleyou've made a lot of good suggestions!