That's an improvement - good. =) (Also, doesn't undercut the cool imagery around it anymore.)
I wish there was more to like in this article overall, though - more that was unusual. There is actually plenty to like in here, but more than half of it is stuff that feels familiar to me and not in a good way. I wish it was… Gone, really. In fact, I think I'd like the article at least 10% more if you weren't trying to call these things "wraiths".
I don't really want to see Our Monsters Are Different at the Library, because that is very far what I come to the Library for. I want 'out there' stuff, or familiar things in contradictory or alien contexts, or things I haven't seen before. Plus it seems to be intended to create some kind of 'canon' on how these kinds of monsters work in this world, which is especially annoying (though I'm not sure you actually meant that - just how it comes off).
Actually, that's a problem with both these "Spirit World" entries: they're just taking standard issue fantasy monsters and writing a bunch of text about them (though this is better than "On Demons" because it has a higher level of original content in it).
This also reads like a fantasy worldbuilding exercise, or even a background description of video game enemies, which - ugh. I would vastly prefer it if you tried to write it more like real-world historical bestiaries. Especially the ones where the author has contradictory information and just lays it all out there, and sometimes isn't sure what's true, but makes a (sometimes wrong) guess. And doesn't pretend to be creating a typology of "all" elementals (that goes back to the artificial canon complaint). Or even go the route Dr. Mann has gone in his Aframos stories, and have different scholars (at least one, but maybe two or three) annotating the book talking about how full of shit the author is or isn't. Much more fun. This just isn't fun the way it is.