No, and it’s interesting that the article doesn’t actually say what Mercantilism was, to avoid making it obvious that it isn’t.
Actually much of what the article says about Smith is accurate and yes he is often misrepresented in the way they described, but their attempt to paint globalisation as mercantilist is bogus.
The primary concern of Mercantilism was to maximise exports and minimise imports, because mercantilists believed that trade was a zero sum game. If one side of a trade is benefiting, the other side must be losing. Interestingly Marx thought in exactly the same way, which is why he came to such ludicrously misconceived conclusions about the nature of value.
Globalisation is simply about goods and services being provided by the nations best positioned to provide them. Some countries excel at financial services, others at manufacturing, still others at providing natural resources.
Yes of course you can put any layer of economic policy you like on top of that, and many countries go. Some apply mercantilist policies, others are more free market, etc. so Mexico is pretty Mercantilist, but the UK isn’t at all because our main deal is services (with a side order of North Sea Oil). Although there was a Mercantilist streak in the Brexit agenda, we’ll see how that plays out. Trumps trade policy was heavily Mercantilist, and anti globalisation.