I've also looked at Shervink's sources and I find them all to be either biased, inaplicable, or unreliable. In my opinion Shervink is advocating a minority viewpoint. Perhaps he should express within the article and note it as such, but clearly it is not reasonable to expect this view to be represented equally with generally accepted facts. 
I feel that this is mostly a well written and informative article and that this whole coup or counter coup thing is pointless. These events are accepted by most sources to have been a coup. What this means is that Mossadeq is accepted to have been the leader of Iran at the time in question, and to have been deposed. The phrase counter-coup implies that Mossadeq deposed the Shah first, which according to the ample scholarship cited in this article, is not what happened. 
It is of course possible that the concensus of scholarship on this issue is in error, but those who beleive this to be the case are by definition, holders of minority viewpoints. 
That said, I do think Shervink's views are interesting and should be included (and noted as a minority viewpoint) in the article. This issue is generally seen as the west vs. Iran with the shah on the side of the west. A point of view more sympathetic to the monarchy is rarely heard.  Itsafarce