Interestingly, about three nights ago I happened to have browsed his 28-300VR gallery, and downloaded each and every one of the large samples, which were all made on the Nikon D3s, a 12 MP, full-frame aka "FX" body in Nikon-speak. The image quality of the 28-300 VR lens was surprisingly high on distant landscape shots. The quality of the lens seems quite high, based on the images I looked at. This was originally an over-$1,000 lens, and it's currently right at $940 or so with USA warranty, and it is only f/5.6 at the 300mm end, so it is not overly huge, and it's not wide-aperture, so the design doesn't have to be super-duper sophisticated.
I'll tell you what: if somebody posted those images stripped of EXIF and said ALL of those landscapes had been shot with a 70-200 f/2.8-II, 99.5% of people who viewed it would believe it without reservation.
Ken Rockwell might be, well, Ken Rockwell, but Nikon is a lens-making company with some of the best lens designers in the business. Ken Rockwell did not make the lens. His review of it doesn't make the lens bad. One really ought to go, and download all the sample photos, and then take a very critical look at them, and ONLY THEN make observations about how well the lens can perform. Otherwise, the appropriate thing to do would be to remain silent.