My feelings exactly.

It doesn't just appear to be substantially written by an LLM; it was written by an LLM.

It lacks the punch. Anyone who didn't know the geometric definition would just be bored to hell by going over the history of how they were discovered which has nothing to do with geometry.

The article says "Visual Intro", but the introduction is literally not visual. The complex numbers are introduced through historical/algebraic lens, and then reintroduced visually, by which time the audience has been lost.

Of course this article will rise to the top here.