... there's significant evidence that the theory is at least partially incorrect.
Too softball. That's not what the article said. "Significant," evidence is redundant. Evidence is sufficient on its own and scientists don't have that yet. That's the point of the effort. "At least partially incorrect," suffers as well. "Incorrect," does not need modifiers. Scientists have verified Hubble's Constant since it became a thing. While the precise value is difficult to pin down, the value still exists for now.
It's like saying, "Relativity (special and general) needs to be re-examined." Of course it does and it has been since its inception.
We still need to examine both, especially because advancing technology provides better tools. However, let's not restate the problem with inaccuracies.