I think there's some valid points here, but the tone and slant of the article are completely disingenuous, as is usual with the Daily Mail.
It would be quite easy to use the same results to draw completely different conclusions. For example, hands-on dad's are rubbish and produce children who are no better than those born to feckless single mothers with no dad on the scene at all? Could that not be rephrased to present a really positive article saying that single mothers can bring up children who do just as well as children from families with two devoted hands-on parents? This article could be used in an exam testing student's abilities for critical thinking. What it says, and how it presents it, are very different from the bare facts of the study.
The salient points are these:
Indiscriminate praise is not particularly helpful as it teaches children nothing about why or what they've done well.
Constructive praise, combined with effective boundaries and constructive criticism is the best balance.
If a parent manages to achieve this balance, it matters not a jot whether it's mum, dad or both parents doing it.
Nothing actually there that we didn't already know, is there?
I occasionally indulge in reading the Daily Mail for its comedic/trash value. It can be highly entertaining if not taken seriously. However, I would not dream of drawing any conclusions about real social issues based on content in its pages.