This is largely spot-on. Of course, the author's assertion (that having all of these things in one place is novel) is incorrect for some programmers, but the sheer boringness of the language is a virtue. Go's features as bullet points are unimpressive; the set of features is the impressive part. Putting in features that are solidly understood, that are desirable, and that don't clash with each other make for a simple, solid, nice language.

I've tried without success to dig up an email from Linus Torvalds (on the LKML?) where, responding to an email complaining that a particular implementation of ARM does not breaking any interesting ground, he goes on a mini-tirade about the lack of appreciation for a simple thing done well. I think Go fits the description nicely.