Thanks, I love it! Like Tufte's
Visual Display... book, it's a great article because it has loads of good examples so the reader can form their own views, regardless of what the text says.
It seems like it proves my point but somehow it skirts around the real conclusion. You say "example cases where more ‘chartjunk’ improve clarity, comprehension, and attention" but I think what you really mean is that sometimes extra ink *isn't* chartjunk.
As I said, the real goal is to maximise the data-visual complexity ratio. That sounds like I'm agreeing with the article but I think there's a subtle difference: Some of the examples you called "too minimal", I would argue, are not minimal. They use less ink but more visual complexity. You actually do want minimalism, but adding more ink or sometimes even more separate elements can create that minimalism.
Your figure 1(a) is an excellent example of Tufte's nonsense, even better than partial axes example I gave. I'm definitely going to link to this article in future when Tufte comes up.