No, they aren't better. As that article clearly described the DSLR being set to full auto and with the raw images being converted to jpeg with zero processing, all the parameters set to zero, so no sharpening, contrast or saturation. The phones were left with all their processing turned on (because it can't be turned off) so (surprise, surprise) their images were sharper and had more punch.
Looking at where they picked for the 100% crops, they are not where the DSLR would focus on full auto (all-points AF) and with the shallower DOF, and zero sharpening, of course the crops looked soft. Why not use a crop from where the camera actually focused. Of course, this is from a phone oriented website, so they are probably looking to make the DSLR look like a poor comparison, so chose to use it in such a way.
Here's a thought, try that test again but unhobble the DSLR by allowing it to at least use a decent picture style which will add the same sharpness etc., that the phones were allowed to use. Better yet, let's process the images in a decent raw editor and make them into big prints and stick those on the wall for the comparison.
Of course phones can beat a DSLR when you hobble it like that, and yes they can take quite good images, but I am not about to use one for serious photography any time soon.
So, no, I don't see the smartphone making DSLRs obsolete any time soon. Apart from any IQ matters, the smartphone can only take good pictures within its very narrow limits. They are crap at high ISO, they can't shoot for shallow DOF, I can't even imagine trying to do birds in flight with one, or trying for slow shutter speed panning shots at a race meeting.
Sure, I use my smartphone for family snapshots to pass around and stick on facebook, that is what they are good at. Anything else though and the DSLRs have them beaten by a very large margin.