I just want to reiterate: point 1 is totally false. That description you linked is incredibly incorrect, captures almost nothing of the spirit of what a monad is, and is somewhat disingenuous.

Lots of people get excited about "monads" and then rush out to write tutorials to try and capture whatever mental model they're using. These mental models may arrive at correct results most of the time, but they're often not really transferrable to another human.

Learn You A Haskell takes a different approach, in which you arrive at creating monads because you naturally derive them as a way to deal with the tedium of functional code w/out such mechanisms.

"Monad tutorials" are becoming much less frequent now that such approaches are offered. Everyone just says, "Go read this chapter or two of this freely available book and you're good to go."

You know, just like any major feature in javascript.

Demonstrate a pair of tutorials aimed at the same level of reader, one in JS, and one in Haskell, where you end up with a better understanding of the idea of a monad reading the former (as opposed to the implementation of the Monad instance for a list).