The Resource Shelf directed me to a new review on Scopus that was written November 2005 and published in January 2006.

Update on Scopus
Reviewed November 2005
The Charleston Advisor Volume 7, Number 3, January 2006

Reviewers:
Louise F. Deis Science Reference Librarian Princeton University Princeton, NJ

David Goodman Associate Professor Palmer School of Library and Information Science Long Island University Brookville, NY

Deis and Goodman provide an update intended to be read in conjunction with their previous review "Web of Science (2004 version) and Scopus" in The Charleston Advisor, Volume 6, Number 3, January 2005 (available as Open Access). This update discusses developments in Scopus over the past 12 months.

The update contends there are still questions regarding interface and functionality and there are serious issues regarding content.

All in all, it is a pretty scathing update.
"We now amend our statement: the true state of affairs is even worse than we imagined. All publishers of journals or databases make errors or leave gaps, but responsible publishers correct at least those called to their attention--especially those called to their attention in public. What will get Elsevier to fill in gaps and produce a complete product? Apparently nothing--while there are libraries who will buy it knowing that 10% percent of the titles are incomplete, Scopus does not even try for a more complete product. This is not the attitude of a responsible publisher. "

Wow if I were Elsevier, I would seriously start cracking the whip to get that content in the database.