Not a big fan of BGR's editorial standard. They tend towards sensationalism rather than fair and unbiased reporting. It's telling that they quote John Gruber's wife, in fact use her quote as the title of the article, yet fail to quote John's final opinion of the display from the same article
"The actual iPad Mini display is not terrible. Its exactly what you think: it feels like an iPhone 3GS display cut to iPad size, including the fact that the pixels seem deeper from the surface of the glass. (It does seem brighter and more vibrant than a 3GS display, perhaps because it uses an IPS panel.) And after a week of using it as my main iPad, the individually discernible pixels are no longer jarring to my eyes. The non-retina resolution is the one and only significant complaint I have with the iPad Mini, and its an issue that is only apparent to those of us who already own a nearly-new iPad."
In the end John's take was similar to that of most of the other reviews I've read, 'we would all have preferred a retina display, but the non-retina is by no means a deal breaker'. I guess BGR felt that Mrs Gruber's initial reaction to the display is more relevant than Mr. Gruber's final opinion.