How about noticing that the article tossed the tepid Ed Norton HULK film (Marvel film #2) down the memory hole altogether?

It does reference The Hulk in the context of the license to Universal. But Marvel regained the film rights in 2006 and Universal was just a distribution partner on Norton-Hulk. It was much more a Marvel Studios film than any sort of Universal-driven successor to Bana-Hulk.

Nor does it ever mention Agents of SHIELD by name. To omit the name after specifically discussing the TV appearance clauses is pretty poor form for a journalist, particularly one who dedicated so much ink to the "Universe" strategy.

But I guess facing Marvel's mis-steps just didn't fit a "Marvel is unstoppable" storyline.