I'm not married to that cite.  I'm fine with finding a better one-however we don't need to get so hung over "going too far" because the parts that you say have "gone too far" aren't going into the article anyway.  (We're not quoting her).  However any cite used there must directly, explicitly, associate ex nihilo to the Genesis account.  Given the degree to which this has been a subject of dispute, I'm not being pedantic about this distinction.  To move past this we need a good citation and the reference used has to directly verify the claim.  That's not negotiable.  The no original research policy is quite clear that you can't source a single claim by joining pieces of it from two different references to construct an argument for it.  Find one good, solid and authoritative source that says it, that explicitly identifies it as a widely accepted interpretation of genesis, and we can move on.  Two would be great.