I have to say, both of your examples above are atrocious. Of all the film treatments and writers in the world, why would you give an example of a "scriptment" from James Cameron for a movie that hasn't even been made? How does this help your reader? A scriptment is something Cameron created for himself and includes content that doesn't belong in a film treatment, instead primarily being reserved for the script itself (dialog, camera direction, etc.) So if I were to explain to someone what a TREATMENT is, I certainly wouldn't cite anything from Cameron, especially a movie that hasn't even been made. How are you supposed to show the reader how a real movie is translated into a treatment if they can't watch the movie it's referencing? It would be nice to show the contrasts between the final product and its inception, but whatever. The second example is awful. A treatment should describe what can be seen on screen. It's why it doesn't typically include dialog unless it's crucial to the plot. That "treatment" is so full of exposition and glib commentary, I couldn't imagine a single reader getting past the first page without tossing it in the bin.
I don't know what game you're playing at, "nofilmschool.com" but as someone who DID attend a film school and currently works in the industry, I wouldn't recommend this article to any young writer starting out.