It reads to me like something written by someone who isn't much of a VK fan and did a handful of research before writing this article making sure to base their descriptions through the small list of bands they know. X, Diru, Sug. Then threw in some basic wiki article fluff to sound 'verified' and passed it off as expert opinion. Yes, some of the history lined up but a fan of the genre could give a much better review of the history and how visual kei specific labels work. As well as the scenes in general which felt glossed over (probably because the writer had little knowledge of them to begin with).
With that said, it' still not a bad introductory piece for someone who is interested in learning about visual kei, but I'd say it's a starting point to digging for their own information... definitely not something to take too seriously.
And to add, does the 'new school' of bands feel more generic and less creative in than the 'originals'? Yeah, sure... everything does, in basically every genre. When something stops being underground and starts including pop music influence, that's generally what happens. That doesn't mean there still aren't a ton of great bands making music, though. There's just a ton of clone bands to wade through before you find them, and I think that's the part people tend to get lost in.