Granted, this one did provide some original content - but all these Ultimate Landing Page articles simply seem to re-hash the same information in a link-baity (with infographics!) way.
It has a ton of original content. Oli (from Unbounce) is considered one of the experts on landing pages and he talks a lot about them in this interview.
I included info-graphics in it because they help get the point across, plus they keep distracted reader interested in the content (who first scans the page if all he sees is text would probably run away)
Yes, but the infographics (term used loosely) add nothing to the article. The article doesn't mention them, or give them any context. At best they are large semi-related graphics re-purposed from other sites whose only purpose is to separate large chunks of text.
This type of visual noise is actually more distracting than not providing an images at all. In my opinion, you would be better to provide images that provide visual context, and illustrate or support his answers.
For instance, in the "Opinion on Landing Pages" section you could provide a screencap of a well designed Full Sail or Webtrends landing page (perhaps with a caption or pull quote of what makes them well designed).
Relevant in the overall big picture of landing pages perhaps, but not to the blog post at hand. That's what "Related Posts" sections are for. If you spend the time to get original content, then you should not be afraid to showcase it.
If you want break up large sections, use visual cues to break up content. Since you mentioned Unbounce, see these[1][2] as inspiration. Note the use of font size and weight, lists, whitespace and images that are directly related to the copy.
If you want more feedback, my email is in my profile.
Perhaps its just a knee-jerk reaction to the fact that they all originate from SEO/analytics company blogs, and recycle this chart http://www.formstack.com/the-anatomy-of-a-perfect-landing-pa...