There is nothing wrong at page 2 of it. But what is said there is not the end of the story. Indeed, the whole text assumes that the reader already knows some general principles of QM, so the text does not bother to say everything what can be said about tunneling. In particular, it does not mention collapse, but it does not mean that collapse has no relevance. In general textbooks the role of collapse is explained in a more general context (not specifically in the context of tunneling), and someone who understood the general role of collapse in QM should be able to apply it in the context of tunneling. That's why I asked you to mention one case where the collapse
is relevant (in your opinion), because that should help me to better understand how do you think about collapse. Perhaps then I could adjust my explanation to your way of thinking.
To see that I am not the only one who think that collapse is relevant for tunneling, see
http://abyss.uoregon.edu/~js/21st_century_science/lectures/lec13.html
In the Section "Quantum tunneling" it says
"
Notice that the only explanation for quantum tunneling is if the position of the electron is truly spread out, not just hidden or unmeasured. It raw uncertainty allows for the wave function to penetrate the barrier. This is genuine indeterminism, not simply an unknown quantity until someone measures it.
It is important to note that the superposition of possibilities only occurs before the entity is observed. Once an observation is made (a position is measured, a mass is determined, a velocity is detected) then the superposition converts to an actual. Or, in quantum language, we say the wave function has collapsed."