What even is this article Holes describe a modification of a shape, a large class of such modifications can be lexicalized as nouns regardless of whether they

What even is this article Holes describe a modification of a shape, a large class of such modifications can be lexicalized as nouns regardless of whether they describe addition or removal of material. This article seems to lose its mind over the latter. Replace the whole thing with "bumps" or "spikes" or "knots" instead of "holes" and it reads like the ravings of a madman (or, more so than it already does). Similarly, holes are not the only modification that remove material, as pointed out by the article, "cracks" and "cavities" and a dozen other words do as well. Naturally, as modifiers, all of these are "guest" modifications on a "host" shape. You can't have a bump without a flat surface from which the bump can emerge, and you can't have a hole without a shape from which to excavate it. Why does explaining something so plainly obvious require a bibliography 28 references long?