The point of the article is that Promises should not be just the name of a general pattern or idea for a common concept, but adhere to a very specific definition. Monads as far as I know are already that, not a pattern but a very specific type of construct.
That's one of the reasons I hate the reality of design patterns in modern software: they start off as useful vocabulary, then some specific variants of the pattern hijack the name, and soon it's impossible to communicate clearly as nobody knows which variants have which names and meanings, and vocabulary starts to diverge wildly (see also: MV* patterns).
The worst example of that phenomenon is Singleton, which everyone believes is about a static factory method that returns the instance. In fact, that was only an EXAMPLE given in the GoF book for a mechanism to get the singleton instance...
That's one of the reasons I hate the reality of design patterns in modern software: they start off as useful vocabulary, then some specific variants of the pattern hijack the name, and soon it's impossible to communicate clearly as nobody knows which variants have which names and meanings, and vocabulary starts to diverge wildly (see also: MV* patterns).