Yes I have already made substantial changes addressing the below before re-submitting the article.
But if more improvements can be found, fantastic.
(I left the criticisms on the article so that the reviewer is reminded of what he/she said initially).
"articles for review are severely backlogged"
So let's take care of all the issues they listed before it gets reviewed again:
1. Tone has a throbbing undertow of excitement: understandable but needs adjustment.
2. Numerous technical errors e.g. authorship of reference 3 is unequivocally wrong, and the sentence it cites does not seem to receive support from that source (using bot search for cited individual.)
3. Would benefit from adding more WP:RS used carefully. Uncited assertions are not going to fly per Wikipedia guidelines.
4. Several in-line links attach to deprecated or non-existent sites - needs clean up.
5. Perhaps (stylistic issue) there is undue use of unexplained jargon.
Good luck. Overall, should eventually be an acceptable article if these issues are properly addressed. (Note: Help available at Teahouse).