it seems to be mostly science-based rather than history-based.

Heh, that's archaeology for you, there are quite a lot of discoveries that's been made in archaeology that involves natural science. For the historical part of the question though:

Yes, if you look at the picture of the wall-painting in the article you can see the sledge with the statue on it. The front of the sledge is slightly curved so that it doesn't just get stuck in the sand. There is also a man pouring water from a jug, as well as four lines of workers pulling on ropes. The hieroglyphs in the picture are too blurry to see properly, but they would be describing the process with which the workers built the pharaoh's pyramid.

It was more news for me - when I saw the article this morning - that it was still debated how they got the stones there, I thought we had solved that years ago. Especially since the Egyptologist they had interviewed in the article I read has a bit of a... uhm... reputation for being flaky.

On a side note:

Perhaps the most confounding mystery of all involves how incredibly large stones made their way to the middle of the desert without massive mechanical assistance. No camel, even the Egyptian kind, is that strong.

No pyramids were built in the middle of the desert, they were all built within good distance from the Nile so that stone from the quarries could be transported by boat transport (it annoys me when reporters place seeds of bad history in their articles).