Well it's a strange feeling... but I would say that it finally makes sense, even though it doesn't matter much to me who formally redescribed it.
As a Rebbachisaur, it is less obscenely oversized compared to the largest other sauropods (we have seen several new titanosaur giants discovered in recent years - Puertasaurus, Paralititan, Futalognkosaurus Dreadnoughtus, Notocolossus, Patagotitan, Ruyangosaurus, and the new Alamosaurus specimens - none of which are significantly larger than Argentinosaurus, and most of which are not significantly larger than "Antarctosaurus" giganteus or the largest referred "Argyrosaurus sp." specimens).
Other new giants like "Huanghetitan" ruyangensis, Daxiatitan, Sauropseidon, the French Monster, etc. are probably not even in that same mass range.
So in other words, the biggest sauropods we know of besides "Amphicoelias" fragillimus, are all much smaller that it would have been, had it been a diplodocid with Diplodocus-like or even Supersaurus-like proportions scaled up to 150 tons or more. But a more compact animal with Rebbachisaur proportions, is more believable, both in terms of how much food it would have required, and how many of them a given ecosystem could sustain... not to mention the biomechanics of its mass and locomotion. Nonetheless, it is a bit odd to have a Rebacchisaur that huge, since all the other ones are not of particularly remarkable sizes.