As with anything else, use your intuition, read between the lines, follow the incentives/money.
Based on the rating they give it does seem like a questionable source.
But if you want to go down that rabbit hole of who is or who isn't a questionable source based on some fact-checker you will eventually reach the question, how do we know that our fact-checker isn't biased? who funds the fact-checker, are there any political motivations over-ruling journalistic integrity, etc. And then eventually you arrive at a fact-checker that fact-checks other fact-checkers. And you can keep going down that rabbit hole forever or you can learn to use your intuition.
I will also say this:
Even a broken clock is right twice per day.
And in the same vein,
Even a questionable source can write an article based on facts every now and then.
Also they can get the Story from Fox News and Tucker Carlson, except the response will be the same. Unless the story comes from a publisher that aligns with their ideals, they won't trust it. Given the story is negative against someone they're throwing support for, they have 0 incentive to share the news. The media isn't about truth in story, it's about truth in political position.
Based on the rating they give it does seem like a questionable source.
But if you want to go down that rabbit hole of who is or who isn't a questionable source based on some fact-checker you will eventually reach the question, how do we know that our fact-checker isn't biased? who funds the fact-checker, are there any political motivations over-ruling journalistic integrity, etc. And then eventually you arrive at a fact-checker that fact-checks other fact-checkers. And you can keep going down that rabbit hole forever or you can learn to use your intuition.
I will also say this: Even a broken clock is right twice per day.
And in the same vein, Even a questionable source can write an article based on facts every now and then.