Details are incumbent upon useful complaints ...
The latter point intrigues me. My articles are written to be completely self-sufficient, which is why they often run quite long. They actually go through a couple of independent QA cycles, including rebuilds of all steps from scratch to make sure they work (I got sick of technical books where problems leave readers hanging, and determined to do it better than that, long ago).
Your implication is that you somehow found a "missing step" somewhere else. All the more odd, because of the uniqueness of most of the stuff in the article you cite. Could you please let us in on the specifics, rather than leaving a "dangling criticism?" What did you see elsewhere that you could insert as a "missing step?"
It will only help to make prospective articles better ...
Bill