I was upset by this statement which assumes a priori that the article must be overstating his impact.

Maybe it is just me, but overstating anyone's impact to this extent is disrespectful to that person.

I don't claim that the article is not overstating Ramanujam's impact, but you seemed to be arguing that there's no way this could be true, so the article must be overstating his impact. Given that even you don't claim to have the background required to objectively evaluate Ramanujam's impact, this seemed to be a prejudiced comment.

In retrospect, I might have been a bit trigger-happy with the downvote. Sorry about that.