It's badly written, but not a bad effort. That comparison table is possibly its best feature.
I still prefer Woodrow though. He has a clear and easy style that lends itself to good comprehension. I believe both he and a number of other authors who have written on the subject (such as J Marcellus Kik, Jon Zens and T Boersma, to name just a few) make a compelling case for a 1st C. fulfilment of the bulk of Mt 24. Transporting the whole lot to the 21st C (or later???) ignores context, and is just a lazy way out of dealing with historical fact and fulfilment.
I particularly like Zens' treatment in a slightly wider context here: