Not a badly-written article. It certainly espouses one point of view, and covers many aspects of it. As far as any further critique, that depends on what point of view you want me to take...
If you want to to look at it as if I were editor of Natural Reverb magazine, I'd like it a lot and print it as the very first letter to the editor in my magazine.
If you wanted to to look at it like a news editor, I'd reject it as not being balanced, not faithfully representing both sides of the story, and not supplying enough supporting facts. I might consider it in the opinions/editorials pages, though.
If you wanted be to look at it as a seasoned engineer, I'd say that there's a time and a place for every tool; that the theory of natural reverb is a good solid one that applies well much of the time, but there are times (and musical arrangements) when - as sweet and logical as it sounds on paper - applying the same "natural" reverb to everything is probably not the optimal sonic approach.
If you want me to just look at it as a dispassioned observer, I'd say I'm glad you have passion enough on the subject to write an opinion piece describing you position on it well; more power to you.
Pick the one you want
G.
