Wales actually said,
"Freedom of panorama is the unrestricted right to use photographs of public spaces, without infringing the rights of the architect or the visual artist. Wikipedia only uses freely licensed images. Therefore, this valuable exception to copyright is necessary in order to allow Wikipedia to freely depict public spaces on relevant articles."
The qualifier you mention ("images of architecture") is not in fact there.
And the French Wikipedia (remember, there is no freedom of panorama in France today) has a special and well-stocked category of "non-free images of recent buildings" – located at fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catégorie:Image_non_libre_de_bâtiment_récent – exactly what Wales claims would be impossible for Wikipedia.
It is the same in other Wikipedias: fair use images stay out of Wikimedia Commons, and are instead uploaded in the relevant Wikipedia itself, in line with that project's non-free content provisions.
The one point I do agree with you on is that the English Wikipedia showing an album cover in an article on that album isn't copyright infringement, but fair use (at least according to US law; in Europe it may be different, and some Wikipedia language versions avoid showing album covers).
But the Guardian article should indeed receive a second correction. As it stands, Wales' statement is grossly misleading.