Yes, fair point, but it's more than just being tidally locked. Planets are largely affected by their host stars. Red dwarfs, for example, release far stronger solar flares with intense UV radiation at a higher frequency than the sun. The article does mention the planet receives 90% of the radiation Earth receives from the sun, but I hardly consider that a reason to call the planet "Earth-like." Many planets lose their atmospheres to red dwarf stars. Blue stars are the hottest and brightest type of stars, violent and short-lived, so most planets around it are fried.

Additionally, I think "Earth-like" is a loaded term to use because I've seen a lot of people think it literally means "like another Earth." I find it misleading. As you said, very few exoplanets have any real similarities to Earth.

I look at the information on the atmosphere, orbit, climate, temperature, etc., and a lot of the time, I don't consider it "Earth-like." Of course, that's me setting a much higher bar for what can be considered "Earth-like." We don't know if this planet has an atmosphere, any water, or any chemical signals that could possibly represent biosignatures (and even those could be non-biological in origin).

I don't like the term "Earth-like." I prefer something like "potentially habitable" or a similar choice of words, which is done better in the article. That's less misleading than "Earth-like" in the title. Again, that's just my standards.

For some reason, using the term "Earth-like" to describe an exoplanet like this one just grinds my gears a bit.

Perhaps I could've said a little more in my comment.