As I was a professional hardware reviewer through most of the timeframe of these cards, I'll jump on the dog pile. They might be using the term GPU in the sense that unless it has hardware T&L, it isn't a true GPU therefore it can't be on the list. Still doesn't excuse the bad FX cards being left off the list. Then again, I agree that this writer probably wasn't born when the GF 256 first came out. So it's probably more like "five biggest Nvidia problems I can remember since I started reading GPU reviews."
The 480, ok, yeah, it was hot, loud, a power hog, not a great card.
The 970 was arguably one of the best gaming values for 2015 and 2016. The internet did what the internet does and memed the 3.5GB to death, and I'm pretty certain 98% of the people complaining about it had no idea what it actually meant. On a whim I paired a 970 with cheap AMD 860K. It was perfectly capable of gaming on three 1080p displays and 1440p. The biggest problem was not the card, but Nvidia's response.
The 1060 3GB was . . . odd. The 3GB VRAM was a big limitation for 1440p and 4K gaming. For 1080p, it was pretty good. But the 1050 Ti was such a kickass 1080p card for about $150 ( at the time ). Not many people wanted to spend $100 extra on the cut down 1060 only for slightly better 1080p performance.
The 2080 certainly fell victim to the real-time ray tracing hype. But worse, the crypto rush just hosed everything at the time.
I mean, if they want to talk about a disappointing or overhyped current Nvidia card, surely some of the Titans qualify. IIRC, one of them had double-precision disabled in software just so it wouldn't undercut their Quadro cards.