In Chen's original ERD notation attributes are ovals connected to their entity which is represented with rectangles, which can have relationships represented with losanges. This resulted in very large and complex diagrams, due to the many attributes.
Crow's Feet notation became therefore more popular since it allowed to express the same models in a more compact way, grouping attributes together with their entity in the rectangles, and using an intuitive visual representation of cardinality. But now that UML is the Lingua Franca of modellers, it's tempting to look at other alternatives.
Your linked source suggests a very natural mapping of the core ERD concepts of entity, attribute, relationships, into the UML class, properties and associations:
(...) entities are modeled as a “class” with an Entity stereotype.
(...) attributes can be arranged in a box style (...)
Relationships are shown as a single solid line connecting the two entities. The minimum and maximum cardinalities are shown along the line and verb phrases can be added to completely characterize the nature of the relationship.
And indeed, the most suitable notation for an ERD diagram in UML would be a class diagram.
Beware however of the subtle semantic differences. For example:
in UML any property (what your mapping relates to attribute) could be modelled either within the box (as what you call an attribute) or as a related associated class (as what you call an entity) with an owned association end.
UML classes are expected to have behavior (it's because of the underlying OOP concepts). Having classes without behavior can be misunderstood by UML reader as a bad design (anaemic domain model). The «Entity» stereotype is not sufficient to disambiguate, since it's in general associated in the UML context with the Entity-Control-Boundary paradigm, which also expects entities to have behavior. Maybe you define an UML profile using a less ambiguous stereotype such as «Data-Entity»
Your linked source is misleading about Crow's feet transposition in UML: you can add a verb phrase on an association in UML, but in the middle oc the association and with and with an arrow head next to the text to show the direction of the reading. In UML, the text at an association end is something completely different: it's called "role". The equivalent in an ERD diagram would be to include an attribute with the role name in the entity at the other end (and which would correspond the the primary key identifying the other entity).
A better source about how to note ERD concepts in different notations can be found in the side-bar of the Wikipedia article on ERD.
Edit: A mapping algorithm is proposed in a more general article "A framework for transforming structured analysis and design artifacts to UML": it mentions that in addition, ERD diagrams sub-type relations should be transformed in UML generalization under the condition that it's an IsA relation.
