I do not believe the issue is it being over-hyped; I would take it as a positive for anything to grab the general public's attention in a positive way for basic science research. Maybe we have a bit of solid marketing here by Michael Turner in coining the term "Dark Matter" for this stuff which grabs the imagination of folk who are outside the small sphere of people who actually understand this (and I would completely acknowledge that I am one).
Is the article a bit "fluffy"? Sure. But if the link was to the IOP, maybe in about 2 weeks, and pulling out my college physics textbooks (oops, they predate this stuff) I might begin to understand the actual theoretical equations behind it. If you churn through the full length of the article it does touch on some meatier topics mentioning WIMPS, supersymmetry, and my favorite the neutralino (just because it sounds cool). Again, yes, lightly, but for the audience targeted doing a pretty decent job of explaining in terms that can be understood and maybe whet the appetite a bit.
And maybe that is the point, sitting here more than a few years past college, I am not likely to go back into to school and study theoretical physics and put together an eloquent equation that pulls all of this together. But, maybe in talking with my kids (in college or college bound) they may pick up the excitement and move the topic forward. Because, in the end it is all marketing. Where are the brightest heading, and what will move forward. If articles like this one sparks some interest, then I'll put up with a bit of fluff (and fully recognize that I would not understand much at all if they broke out the underlying math) if it sways public opinion in favor of basic research, and maybe helps sway a couple of new physicists.