I could read it and now figured out why: you have to be logged in into Facebook or Google or whatever, then you can read it (clicking "Maybe later" for the subscribe). So open another tab and log in to your social media account, then it works (but it seems only once, unless you restart browser etc.).The article is behind the paywall. So I can’t read it.
I find the NYT article well written, the author is writing for non-(swing)-dancers mainly, for this audience it is good. It is not published in a WCS magazine. Sure the experts come and say "Oh this is not really correct". If the author would spend weeks longer on writing each article she will get fired from her boss. I need to concentrate to understand the reddit comment, and I dance WCS since a year - most NYT readers would be overwhelmed. Also it is not the author stating WCS has left some swing roots but she cites LaTasha Barnes who claims that - and Barnes will continue claiming that despite the arguments of the reddit guy. Here you go into discussions which will never end, and while people discuss the dance keeps on evolving.Problem I seen often with articles about dancing like tango, salsa, or swing in popular press is that they often disappoint the regulars who pursue them. The authors often are trying to write with masses as the audience. They will quote the performers. This uniformly draws condemnation from the dancers who read the article. Unless author has spent at least 10 years actively dancing in a community, I doubt they can write anything but a more shallow copy. To authors and NYT like editors this is either a human interest story or arts/culture story. It is like they write about a shop based on what’s on its window display, rather than going inside and walking the isles. They will cut out nuances and things that matter to regular dancers because the audience is masses.