Your criticism feels entirely non-substantive. Of course it's lacking depth as its target audience is not historians. Maybe your issue is with the overall trend of "pop journalism" that puts out short, easy to ingest but ultimately reductive content (I think of outlets like Vox on YouTube). I personally think as long as it's not outright lying about the subject, exposing it to more people is better than gatekeeping it for academia.

Plus I found the read fairly interesting.