I just composed a very lengthy and detailed defense of @cglushko and this article, with tons of examples and references to other comments, and then when I went to post it, .net crapped out on me and I lost the whole thing!! Grrrrrr. So here's the tl;dr version of it, which is probably better anyway.

This is a well-written, thoughtful, provocative, and controversial article in which the author sticks to his clearly defined and entirely logical parameters. I don't agree with everything he wrote (especially re: Coventry, which I think is unrankable) but I see where he's coming from, especially when you realize that quality in his rankings is almost entirely based on type-II improvisation. And you all need to relax and not take it so personally