Except that your article does not actually refute it. I read it.<quoted text>
Sorry, totally refuted.
1. A bunch of whining about evolutionary hype. Then...
2. The point that experts are arguing over whether its really Homo or Australopith (again, exactly what one would expect in TRANSITIONS)
3. The argument by the author that its Australopith features outweigh the Homo ones so its really an Australopith (see (2) above).
The fact is, it's a creature less like the early Australopiths or and more like the earliest Homo (habilis).
Wake up. Thats exactly what we would expect. Its called a continuum of change.