Woefully written, sentences are jumbles of words and ideas with no clear point, paragraphs start on one track and jump to another seemingly at random and the conclusion makes the whole article feel pointless. Then there are the inaccuracies, too many to list, but an example right on the first page: 'Each episode was its own story'. Except every episode from the 1963 to 1989 was comprised of multiple episodes, so what point are you making exactly?
The main problem with the article (and to be fair with a lot of the accepted wisdom about Who) is that it treats that 30+ year span of the show like a monolith, when in reality it's anything but. Yes the show was retooled when it came back in 2005, but the same can be said of 1966 when they decided to recast their leading man, or 1970 when they decided it wasn't about travelling in time & space and made it an ensemble show set at a military base, or really any of the major shake-ups that came with a new production team. The show is not cult, in the way that so much American made Sci-Fi is, committed to being it's own totally unique thing. It has always survived by aping whatever was doing well on T.V or at the Movies. When that was 'The Avengers' (British) the show gave it's spin on Steed and Peel, when it was 'Star Wars' the show went for model spaceships and lasers.
So do yourself a favor and unshackle from the mindset that Modern Who is X while Classic Who was Y because both have enough flavours to cover an entire alphabet and no statement is gonna hold true for all of either one.