Wow, I had not heard of that one!
It seems like it is getting pushback on birdsite, but corporate social media and group blogs attracts a lot of "talking points for people with brains." I am disturbed by the effect this has on our systems for building consensus based on testing claims, because people are speaking with their authoritative professional voice but not bothering to use those slow thoughtful ways of evaluating claims within their area of expertise. Some of those pushbacks makes blatantly false claims about the article (no, the authors do not say Tall el-Hamman is biblical Soddom). I hope some of those criticisms turn into actual blog posts with footnotes.
Nature is a very unreliable venue on archaeology and philology, but on first glance it looks like a properly formed article.