That didn't seem like a very substantial philosophical criticism.

If you'd read his stuff it's crap, even Wittgenstein thought so in his later years.

Yeah, the 'later' Wittgenstein actually throws away a lot of his 'early' Wittgenstein and he actually admits that his quest for absolute undivisible logic was actually a bit embarrassing.

The importance of his later works Philosophical Investigations seems to be underlooked in the article in favor of his earlier Tractatus, which is a bit sad. Wittgenstein's later work, although fiercely criticized by rigid supporters of logical atomism (such as Russell), seem to have contributed much more to the advancement of philosophy in overall.

Philosophy is a collection of more or less consistent opinions. It is pointless to debate who is right, because there will never be a sure answer.

I can't think of clearer way of signalling that you haven't read any Wittgenstein

Not sure why this should be a valid conclusion from my statement; but undoubtedly yet another speculative (and even wrong) opinion.

Wittgenstein's later philosophical works, like Philosophical Investigations, attacked the bedrock of a lot of philosophy, in particular the kind that developed from Descartes (and arguably, if you want to trace it all the way back, to certain parts of Plato). His arguments have been quite influential, and frequently devastating broadsides against a lot of philosophy. The idea that philosophy has long been extremely consistent rather betrays the fact that you haven't read Wittgenstein, who was often entirely oriented around pointing out the faults in philosophical arguments, not just in a minor way, but by saying and showing how an entire philosophical debate often came down to conceptual confusion and mis-use.

"I am, therefore, of the opinion that the problems have in essentials been finally solved."

I wouldn't necessarily say Wittgenstein is overrated but he became so 'good' because he bugged the sh*t out of Bertrand Russell.

A bit like how George Harrison and Ringo Starr became so good because they were in the presence of Lennon and McCartney.

Being around great people and in that kind of environment is what leads to these kinds of breakthroughs.

maybe, but on the other hand Harrison was the technically most accomplished guitarist in the band and Lennon had commented that George was always asked to go jam with other musicians but he never was.

Ringo Starr is often considered one of the great rock and roll drummers.

I'd like to think they all became so good partly because they were in the presence of each other.

Interesting video about drummers talking about Ringo: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wJTjjAXDZSY