This bit from the article cracks me up:
Abrams' Star Trek, on the other hand, is very much Kirk-centric. While Chris Pine has delivered a magnificent performance as the captain, I find myself missing the nuanced diversity of the original. In a serialized form, Star Trek was able to give each character narrative autonomy, allowing them to develop outside the shadow of their charismatic leader. But in the recent films, characters like Bones, Scotty and Sulu serve as plot devices within The Kirk Show and not much more.
Did the writer of the article actually watch the original series, or even the original movies? The original STAR TREK was very much a show about Kirk and the decisions he made, especially in the very early first season. Even when Spock and McCoy took on more prominence in the stories, the show was still very much Kirk-centric. He was the center of the action. The Abrams movies have very much returned to the Trek's roots with the heavy focus on Kirk, as well as Spock.
And it can be argued that STAR TREK, no matter the form, whether it be TOS, VOY or the Abrams movies, is a story about the captain whoever that may be. TNG made a fatal mistake in not making that clear in the first one-and-a-half seasons with the captain role divided into two characters. That's why a lot of fans dress in captain's uniforms, which I'm guilty of, 'cause we know it's all about the captain.