I kinda liked the article myself. If one wants to approach Tolkien in a scholarly way, these items have to be considered. JRRT was sub-creating whole mythologies, complete with languages, and their own internal creation myths. A mighty big task for one man.
The problem comes when we, fans and scholars, try to see if all of his works fit together. I think Christopher Tolkien sent us down the garden path with his editing of the Silmarillion, where he used what was at hand to complete one of his father's universes. He gave us plenty of warning that it was a good-faith effort, but we shouldn't take it as gospel.
It's interesting how Tolien's successful "The Hobbit" brought a demand for more about hobbits. That, in turn, led him to use his Silmarillion universe, with modifications, as the setting for LOTR, with hobbits shoehorned in. Things grew and diverged, ("balrog wings"), and with the inclusion of material from "Unfinished Tales" guaranteed that no comprehensive canon could ever be agreed to.
I don't get upset about it. I look at all that material, and treat it like the fragments of ancient tales that have come down to us in various versions and fragments, giving us a tantalizing glimpse at a vast universe that we will never know clearly.