The paper I'm referring to can be found here. It came out in 2003. I've been told by professors before that I should be careful relying on things from this paper, because it contained errors.

Is there some place the errors in this paper are enumerated?

An error in a different paper of the authors (but related to this paper) was pointed out and corrected here. Is this the only known error in the paper?

My interest is in building model structures on categories of algebras over an operad. For a long time I thought there weren't any errors in that part of the paper. However, today I realized that in Remark 4.2 they claim that Prop. 4.1 implies every topological operad $P$ is admissible, i.e. $P$-alg inherits a model structure. This makes me suspicious. It would say for one thing that commutative monoids in Top form a model category, i.e. it would give us a model structure on a subcategory of Top where every object is a product of Eilenberg-Maclane spaces. Does that work?

path connectedcommutative monoid in topological spaces need be weakly equivalent to a product of Eilenberg-MacLane spaces. For example, the free commutative monoid on a space $X$ is the disjoint union of the spaces $X^{\times n}/\Sigma_n$ for $n\in\mathbb{N}$. These quotients will rarely be equivalent to products of Eilenberg-MacLane spaces: e.g. $(S^1)^{\times 2}/\Sigma_2 \simeq S^1 \vee S^1$. – Ricardo Andrade May 4 '13 at 0:55cofibrantoperads. Unfortunately, the commutative monoid operad is not at all cofibrant. My only other idea was to try transferring the model structure on simplicial commutative monoids to the category of topological commutative monoids. However, I could not easily see whether the conditions for the existence of the transferred model structure were verified. – Ricardo Andrade May 4 '13 at 4:06