Personally, I find some of the other articles by the site author to be rather informative. I think PP is his strength.
About this review, I do agree, as with many others have pointed out, that he seemed to have done it without putting in the due effort and time. You can read it in the writing. Compare this with what he wrote in the few recent Leica articles/reviews, it is obvious. Even the number of images on the page speaks for themselves.
Perhaps he wrote it from his perspective, one who is used to much much higher end gear. He did write that he had 4 other cameras to choose from at the time of testing the K-7 (which I suspect they consists of at least the Leica M9 and S2). Even the lenses he chose for the K-7 (all zooms) were based on his experiences and approach with C*, N* and the alpha900 he is used to. There are no Limiteds in his lens line-up, which puzzles me cos that's Pentax's USP (Unique Selling Point). If he had bothered to find out more about the camera and use/test it based on its design philosophy, I'm quite sure it would have been a different experience for him.
What I'm saying is that his approach to this test is flawed. I'm not saying he should say only the good stuff, or that the report lacks technical details (for that, we can refer to many excellent sites like DPReview and Imaging-resource, which incidentally gave a favorable conclusion). IMHO, I had expected more from a "PRO" photog.