The article isn't particularly well written or argued, but it does have a core of truth to it: serious code review in GitHub is painful. However jumping straight to Gerrit to solve that problem seems like overkill to me. Sure, you get a really powerful and extremely configurable code review system, but you have to retrain for a new (and honestly a little long in the tooth) UX and spend time administrating the system.

A lighter-weight SaaS like https://review.ninja, https://omniref.com, or https://reviewable.io (disclosure: this one's mine) might be a more appropriate solution. Specifically to the article's points, Reviewable has a nice reviews dashboard and will show inter-commit diffs within a PR (whether you're rebasing/amending or not), hiding any files with no changes since you last looked. Its default review completion criterion is that all files have been marked as reviewed by at least one person and there are no unresolved discussions still going on, but you can customize this to your team by writing a snippet of code to run against the review's state, e.g. to implement LGTM approval or even a voting system. Reviewable will also update a status check on the PR so you can enforce review completion before merging if that works best for your situation.

Best of all, because both systems integrate tightly with GitHub, there's no need to learn a new workflow or mess around with new git commands. Gerrit still has its place but I don't think it should be the tool of first resort.

(Edit: added mention of Omniref.)