Sorry but I have to disagree on pretty much every single point. In part you simply make factual errors.

I think the page looks fairly stylish. Could improve, but pretty great already in choice of colors and layout. ("Dehydrated urine" for a simple gold color? Seriously? Stop watching watersports.)

Being 100% free software as in GNU, meaning being entirely free of uninspectable binary blobs, and working hard to make the system easily improvable and amendable by the user community, is a big deal. Deal with it. GNU aims for people for whom these are important criteria.

The features listed in the second point are based in concepts that are nontrivial to grok. There is no short way to explain them on an intro front page, but not mentioning them would be silly since they are what sets Guix apart from standard package managers (which ironically is what you request being listed). Maybe you should look up the meanings of those terms instead of straight out assuming they're marketing buzz. Transactional updates, and unprivileged/user-level package management are pretty big deals. Likewise, providing clean APIs in a high-level programming/scripting language is very much a big deal; see how easily a web front-end could be made for Guix.

Redirecting newcomers to Nix would just add an unnecessary layer of indirection. The name is clearly a homage to Nix, and also otherwise "everybody knows" that Guix is Guile+Nix, so claiming there's malicious intent in leaving out a mention of Nix would be just silly. And Guix is not a Guile wrapper around Nix; it has an entirely different package recipe format and database. You don't use Guix to work with a Nix system; rather the Guix system uses a low-level component taken from Nix. Casual users don't need to know anything about Nix.

Lastly, functional package management brings immense pragmatic benefits (source-binary correspondence, reliability of transactional updates, etc.), i.e. it's not simply a dogmatic application of FP concepts to package management. You'll note that Guix uses Scheme, not Haskell. I think most people interested in functional package management are so for the practical benefits, so I think you have a pretty wrong image of those folks.

All in all, please make sure you have a proper understanding of a topic before making such inflammatory remarks. It doesn't help anyone.