Voynich researcher Nick Pelling put it best, but the description of Gibbs' "decipherment" as given in the article is not currently very compelling. One of the main issues with the Voynich Manuscript is that people still aren't clear how to read it; the "Voynichese" has a number of possible ligatures and differences in handwriting that obscures exactly how many characters it is, and while Voynichese looks like a deceptively simple substitution cipher, the statistical distribution is wrong for all known languages - which might be the result of not counting the characters correctly, or using some sort of abbreviation system, etc. Any attempted decipherment would have to explain these features. "False decipherments" show up every couple of years, usually based around some superficial claim or based on an interpretation of the images. In 2014, Prof. Stephen Bax claimed he made a partial decoding [PDF], others have claimed it was a transcription from Nahuatl. Note: Edited because I got my links mixed up, thank you u/DeciusMagnus for pointing this out.

A (somewhat old, but still valuable) description and history of attempts of decipherment is The Voynich Manuscript: An Elegant Enigma [PDF] by M. E. D'Imperio. Pelling in his own book The Curse of the Voynich made the interesting note that at least part of Voynichese resembles Milanese 15th century encryption, but he also outlined many of the difficulties facing decipherment, and disagreements over whether Voynichese is a natural or synthetic language, a cipher or a code, etc.