The NYT made fairly basic and preventable factual errors in the 1619 project. They should not have done this. This is not new or interesting or controversial information among relevant historians. What is controversial among relevant historians is the conclusion that therefore the 1619 project is ideological bullshit that shouldn't be seen as anything other than garbage. The author of the article you link was indeed correct - factual errors became a lightning rod for reactionaries to dismiss the work as propaganda. But that's not actually how criticism of historical writing works in the academic community.
I suspect that if I spoke with the author of this piece, as I have spoken to many people who I suspect she would call colleagues, she'd be more likely to agree with my presentation than yours.
All historical writing is "revisionist history." This term is not actually a slur in the academic community because each historian is almost necessarily writing on a topic that many historians have written on before and their work is in dialogue with the work that came before. Presenting a historical narrative from another perspective or through a different methodological lens is not bad nor does it attack or destroy the work that came before.
Braudel has claims that are outright wrong but The Mediterranean is heralded as a triumph. Said has claims that don't hold up today but Orientalism is a critical step forward for the field. Heck, even fucking Foucault is seen as essential writing for historians despite him having all sorts of factual errors in his work. Historical writing should seek to be based in fact. But fucking up (even very badly) is not a reason to declare a work to be propaganda.