It is pretty good. I can't quite tell if the authors are actually balanced in their viewpoint, or just wish to be seen as such, but we could do with more of the same.
Still, though, two quick notes about claims that jumped off the page at me.
winning 12 of 15 major elections between 1998 and 2015, and conceding on the three occasions when it lost (December 2007, September 2010, and December 2015). On the five occasions Chávez stood for office between 1998-2012 he won by substantial margins (his lowest margin was 55-44% in 2012, and his highest was 63-37% in 2006). Venezuela’s current president, Nicolás Maduro, was also democratically elected.he idea that Venezuela is authoritarian has been repeated ad nauseam for nearly the entire eighteen-year period of Chavista rule, which began when Hugo Chávez was elected president in 1998. Until recently, it has been relatively easy to refute this claim, which ignores the fact that Venezuela’s ruling party has been repeatedly affirmed at the polls,
That Chavez (and/or Maduro) was elected fair and square isn't the issue with regard to authoritarianism. They could either or both be authoritarian even if everyone voted for them.
Regularly repeated charges of electoral fraud are baseless, as fraud is all but impossible in Venezuela’s electoral system
Huh. So if electoral fraud is all but impossible, what about those three MUD electees then? More needs to be said about how they did the all-but-impossible, or else why should Venezuelans and the world take the government's word for it with no evidence?