I think the criticism here is not that the article is incomplete ("not exhaustive") but rather that it makes several fundamental mistakes and doesn't actually d

I think the criticism here is not that the article is incomplete ("not exhaustive") but rather that it makes several fundamental mistakes and doesn't actually describe Big O. It describes a "pop culture" version of Big O, which is not Big O, but calls it Big O. It's not useless, and a lot of care seems to have gone into it, but ultimately it's a lay person explaining something they don't firmly grasp, and making a couple of serious mistakes in the process. I love the presentation itself though!