These flaws aren't failings of the article, but univeral to science, knowledge, and human endeavor:

> Either it is correct; or it is not. Perhaps it is somewhat correct, but then it may not be fully correct, so it would contain wrong information.

This describes all science and all knowledge; if that's not good enough, nothing is good enough. Everything somewhat correct and somewhat incorrect; the best stuff is much more of the former. Newton's Laws are mostly correct, somewhat incorrect.

> science does not really work well when it is based on speculation

Speculation is the foundation of science: it leads to an hypothesis, which leads to research, which leads to more speculation.

> their theory is incomplete as of yet. That's not good.

That also is the nature of all science. For example, papers include analyses of their own blind spots and weaknesses, and end with suggestions for further research by others.

> There are examples of where theories were lateron shown to be wrong.

That's also part of science and all human endeavor. If you disallow that, we might as well go back to being illiterate - everything we read is flawed, and inevitably some is wrong.