This is one of the most obviously not proofread articles I've seen in a while, particularly among ones that made it to HN. For example: > a 2017 modeling pape

This is one of the most obviously not proofread articles I've seen in a while, particularly among ones that made it to HN. For example: > a 2017 modeling paper in Biological Conservation (pdf) found that 30,000 butterflies adult butterflies are probably the smallest viable population. "butterflies" is repeated. > Its population has fallen by 97% since the 1980s, and is at just 99.5% of its original abundance. If Monarch populations were at 99.5% of their original abundance, we'd be celebrating or heavily investigating why they haven't been more adversely affected by human activity. They almost certainly mean 0.5%. Now the first might be a "minor" error, but it's still something obvious enough to be caught on a scan. The second? That's a massive factual error. Seriously, who publishes stuff like this?