I think all can agree the J-15 is at least heavily 'inspired' by the Su-33/T-10K. Calling it reverse-engineered with upgrades is more correct than wrong. Give Russians credit where it is due. 99.9% of people on earth cannot tell a J-15 apart from a Su-27. The article is written for an informed but still general audience.
I think the author was very fair. At the very top, he already stated that the USN paid heavy price for its lessons and so far PLAN has been relatively flight-deck accident-free. 'Timid' = 'Cautious'. He gave several examples: very light/no weapon/drop tank load for the J-15s to take off, short in-air time, and the low J-15 sortie rate as compared with the recent USS Ford deployment. The lack of generational knowledge and the difficulty in training two crews when you only have one carrier are also quite valid. I don't know the criteria for 'successful' simulation is. If it meant everything went by the script, then sure. However, whether the scripted tempo matches the expected high-intensity of actual combat against the USN (a la Midway), we simply don't know (the Shandong article used the term 'combat-oriented', not 'combat') and unless PLAN is preparing for imminent war, putting crew safety and budget as top priorities are perfectly natural. From a career military man, I can see why he used the term 'timid' instead of 'cautious'. It is a fact that PLAN carrier aviation is still very very young.
The author ended the article cautioning to the USNI audience that PLAN sailors are fast learners and will be more formidable after gaining the necessary experience. This is also very fair assessment from a naval professional.
