I don’t see why that’s unfair. By narrowing its focus to a specific time and place, and ignoring parallels with other times and places, it seems so easy to draw false conclusions or just tell a chronology of events rather than do the interpretive work expected of a historian.
I see this as a trend in historical works—the study of historical writing is called “historiography”, and if you pull up an article on historiography you can see the trends that I am talking about.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historiography_of_the_United_K...
There’s even a name for this kind of puff piece about UK history. It’s called “Whig history”, and Whigh history has its own history (or historiography), which is fascinating in its own right.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whig_history
I don’t see how it’s possible to say with confidence what the Victorians gave us without understanding what it’s like to not have a Victorian history.
The article - a review of a book about Victorian science - specifically says that "This epochal transformation in public consciousness was forged in 19th-century Britain, continental Europe and the United States." It's not attempting to be a comparative history of science, and given it's subject, it is not fair to criticise it for not discussing prior scientific hubs. It specifically references the views of an American, Mark Twain.