In my opinion, it is a pretty lazy criticism if one could call it that. It implies that popularity necessarily implies quality. This is most definitely not the case.

"Rambling, rambling, rambling" part is especially unnecessary. How about quoting parts from the article instead and let us know what you think is wrong? As it is, I cannot imagine what I would reply to this "criticism", besides the fact that it incorrectly implies that popularity necessarily means quality.

His reply is fair however, criticism relies on someone evaluating one's arguments rather than blurbing out a stock reply. There was no engagement there within those critical comments.