I love OCaml, but I would hardly call it a declarative language. You still describe the steps to perform an algorithm, rather than the result of the algorithm. The article poster references Haskell and explicitly says "The functional approach brings indeed several improvements over regular imperative or object-oriented programming. But still it’s not the solution."
The argument forwarded for considering them declarative is that their compilers perform transforms on the source code, and that there are no side-effects.
I certainly agree with your interpretation more. Typical functional programming isn't really declarative (though, yes, moreso than imperative programs are) and those waters shouldn't be muddied.
