The article says that "glucose" is the fuel for mitochondria, which is true. But the article does not say that "lipids" are the fuel for mitochondria as well while it should have.

Such asymmetry of presentation may create a dangerous illusion about the glucose as the ultimate nutritional fuel. That illusion may affect nutritional choices of a reader because the article painted glucose as the supposedly purest source of energy.

At the end, we have a world full of asymmetry in sugar's favor and this article is just a brick in the sugar wall.

I may be misremembering, but doesn't fat have to be processed into glycogen in the liver before being available for metabolic consumption?

All this information should be included too! Obviously there is a limit to the article scope but it wouldn’t harm to answer these obvious questions it leaves dangling.

No, fats that come from the food (triglycerides) are directly consumable by the cells.

That can't be right. Triglycerides are the bulk of body fat. Now, presumably if you eat fatty tissue the triglycerides in the food will be broken down by enzymes into simpler molecules that can be absorbed by the intestinal walls, and perhaps those molecules may be directly usable. Is that what you mean? If so, then do you know what triglycerides break down into?