Unfortunately, this article does not clarify what would constitute sufficient evidence, or what would be a test for sufficient evidence for a belief. If I get to determine what is sufficient evidence, then everything I believe has sufficient evidence to convince me, and therefore everything I believe is always morally right.
We all believe many things without any evidence (if you mean scientific evidence)
We believe that bills and coins have a value; that Belgium exists; that laws apply; that there are human rights; that Emmanuel Macron is Le Président de la République française ....
And the only 'evidence' we have for these beliefs: that other people believe it too (and there are documents written by those other people)
‘it is wrong always, everywhere, and for anyone, to believe anything upon insufficient evidence’
It's giving 'Justified, True, Belief' a moral slant. I don't think these epistemology terms work well as moral theory, which I think ought to be concerned with the will, rules/principals, intentions/motives and results/consequences.