The author of that guide is vicious in his exposé, and only lists 14 altcoins as being "acceptably mined" (of which Monero is one). Nonetheless, most savvy investors agree wholeheartedly with him and can't fault the facts he demonstrates.
While the site seems reasonable and well researched, I do take issue with some of their characterizations, particularly those with fastmines due to poor difficulty adjustment (litecoin and vertcoin are listed as questionable, with vert still teetering on the edge of extreme caution), while coins like boolberry and monero (which had a private miner supposedly raking in half of all blocks at one period, a fairly extended period for boolberry) or maxcoin (which also had a private miner and then hardforked to change block reward to a smaller amount several months after launch) are listed in acceptably mined currency section.
If you look at the top 10/100/1000 addresses on bitinfocharts.com for vertcoin, it has a far better/broader distribution than namecoin or terracoin (fairly mined currencies according to the site), and the stats aren't available for franko, maxcoin, potcoin, and most of the others listed as fairly mined on bitinfocharts.com, but I suspect since most of them failed to remain popular they are very concentrated amongst a few.
Also, the writer is obviously a proponent of devcoin (which he lists in an even higher category than fairly mined - it is an "ethical" coin) states:
Using the same SHA-256 algorithm, their model gives only 10% of mined coins to miners and the other 90% to the Devcoin foundation to split amongst web developers, writers, and other creative content producers.
So apparently it's "ethical" to keep 90% of all coins for the foundation to distribute as it pleases, but what amounts to a less than 10% of coins now for vertcoin (and constantly dropping) or less than 1% for litecoin lands them in the questionable category.
I have no issue with blackcoin and other superfast PoW then switch to PoS coins being listed in extreme caution category.