Cyclic dependencies in runtime code isn't bad, but might be an
indication of highly coupled design if it is a static cyclic dependency.
 What articles have you read? A reference would be nice.

Why would it be a functional issue?  It's only a design issue in that
the complexity of maintenance can become unmanageable.  For a small
package that performs a specific task, cyclic dependencies may be a
perfectly elegant design.  When cycles go beyond the package scope, you
increase the risk of overlapping cyclic references prohibiting any
changes to the code (spaghetti code).

In addition to the points that have already been made, it is easier to
unit test code without cyclic dependencies.

Any subtree, down to a leaf class that depends on nothing else, can be
tested as a unit, without it caring whether it is being used by one of
its normal callers or by a unit test.

Testing a class that depends on the classes that use it tends to require
more scaffolding.

Patricia