Yes the other diagrams are better for mass consumption, and illustrating direct representation of the data distribution.
But that's not the purpose of a box diagram and the article even did a side by side comparison showing an apples and oranges comparison of 2 total different representations of the data.
Those diagrams were never meant to represent the data in the same way.
The article simply could have shown a better way of illustrating the data, rather than implying box diagrams are incorrect, which they aren't, any more than choosing a bad graph or axis is (CF. parent comment)
IIn all of your replies you make snide reference to “general audiences”, “mass consumption”, etc. You very obviously place yourself in a higher class because of your ability to correctly interpret box plots. Can we please just move past that though? The vast vast vast majority of box plots are for “general consumption”. The vast vast majority of box plots are used in place of a more suitable chart type. You seem to be arguing that, because a box plot is hypothetically suitable for some (in the grand scheme of things) corner case, that the author’s point is faulty. I think that you are completely overstating the importance of the hypothetical ‘correct case’. You’re getting stuck on a point that nobody, least of all the author, is making.
But that's not the purpose of a box diagram and the article even did a side by side comparison showing an apples and oranges comparison of 2 total different representations of the data.
Those diagrams were never meant to represent the data in the same way.
The article simply could have shown a better way of illustrating the data, rather than implying box diagrams are incorrect, which they aren't, any more than choosing a bad graph or axis is (CF. parent comment)