I am only part way through the article, but I have to say that comparing the Vado (about $100) with even the Canon DC210 (about $400) just doesn't wash. If you had at least mentioned the price disparity, it might have been acceptable, but the Vado isn't aimed at the same market. Plus, the VADO HD is available, yet the article says, "but we're still waiting for the HD version of the Vado."
For me, this weakens the journalism and therefore weakens the reviews in general. It makes me wonder, did you really do due diligence in the review. Maybe your article lead time is too long, but that's where an editor can add notes, like, The Vado HD was released just after this review was completed.
Just my two cents worth.