You're right. FDR was responsible for far more boondoggles than the author mentions. But the piece was already running a bit long, don't you think?
No, I don't think the piece was anywhere near long enough. If the author wanted to attack FDR programs as boondoggles (which many if not most were, imho), he should have argued such. Instead, he just pulls out a few issues and adds some circumstantial evidence without really making a compelling case one way or the other. This article has all of the depth of a high-school textbook, without any substance behind the claims.