>Building more support structure than you need is a waste of time.
Knowing what is needed is more than half the battle, though, isn't it? Knowing what resonates? For myself, I don't see any way to know precisely what support structure a story needs before the story exists. Even after I've written the dang thing, I'm hard pressed to say this datum was needed but that wasn't. It's a process, and every step along the way, however wandering, got me to the end. There's more to art than necessary and unnecessary. There's also the unavoidable.
I would have liked the article to provide examples of advice that suggests focusing on support elements rather than on sense of wonder etc. I'm suspicious of criticisms of targets that are off-stage. It's too much like setting up straw men. If there were such advice (I'm sure at least one example could be found somewhere), then it would surely be wrong. All world building with no images, descriptions, or sense of wonder? Foolishness!
But I don't think that's what's going on. I think it's more likely there are articles than go into great detail on worldbuilding and that a novice writer might become so fascinated by such things that their storytelling becomes a bit mechanical. That's fine. If they truly are writers, they'll grow out of it. If they aren't, no amount of wonder sensing is going to lead them to a solid story. It's all of a piece, and different artists come at their art from different angles. There are formulae for chemistry, not for art.
But, just to argue with myself for a moment, articles on writing have this virtue, at least: they turn out to be useful to someone, somewhere, some time. So, let a thousand flowers bloom.