I can't offer any quality criticisms on the actual content that would be in line with the 20 year rule we have here, but my main issue with this description of Detroit's history is that it fails to contextualize Detroit with any comparisons to the US economy as a whole or other American cities that also suffered from the shift away manufacturing.
The analysis linked by OP fails to offer much in the way of the larger context of American social and economic changes since Detroit's apogee around 1950. However, it's worth comparing Detroit's trajectory in the last 70 years or, with other cities of the industrial Midwest that had similar economic and demographic characteristics around 1950, and asking:
Why none of these cities have suffered nearly the degree of political, social, and economic dysfunction that have beset Detroit.
Cleveland, Pittsburgh, Minneapolis, St. Louis, and Chicago, since in the mid-1950s have suffered similar problems to Detroit, in terms of a combination of social tensions (of which race riots are a symptom, not a cause, as the OP's link correctly observes) and de-industrialization leading to a loss of population and tax base. All of these cities have struggled with similar social and economic problems over the last 50 years or so, but none of them have seen quite the degree of population loss and and economic decline that Detroit has. So, I think we need to ask two questions here:
Are Detroit's problems qualitatively different from those of other cities in the Midwest with similar economc and social characteristics? Or does Detroit simply get noticed more since it had farther to fall (it was the 2nd largest city in the Midwest (after Chicago) in the 1950s.
Can we trace Detroit's problems to specific decisions made by authority figures (gov't or corporate), or has Detroit simply been a "victim" of larger economic and social forces beyond it's control?
I don't have answers to either of these questions, and answering properly probably falls afoul of the 20 year rule.
I think it's pretty unfortunate that the comment only mention's "racism" once, and only as part of a passing mention of how "violence became endemic owing to racism and government corruption" in the 1950s. There might be a grain of truth to that statement, but it needs a massive amount of unpacking for it to make much sense. More to the point, historians have known since (at least) the publication of Sugrue's Origins of the Urban Crisis - almost twenty years ago - that the origins of many of Detroit's problems can be traced back much much earlier than that.
Racism is central here, and you really can't explain how Detroit ended up as it did without looking at how racial segregation - both residential and occupational - shaped the growth of the city from the 1920s-on. Insofar as the linked comment largely fails to address this fact (racism really seems only seems to be mentioned passing) it largely fails to adequately or accurately explain the history of Detroit.