The substance of the criticism is correct, but I would recommend that you point out the problem as one of incompetence in journalism rather than counterproducti

The substance of the criticism is correct, but I would recommend that you point out the problem as one of incompetence in journalism rather than counterproductive insults about IQs. Initially, I thought that you were referring to this comment, which (correctly) said that the discoverer thought it was a Buddhist stupa. > It wasn't until 1922 that R D Banerji, an ASI officer, believed he saw a buried stupa, a mound-like structure where Buddhists typically meditate. But no, the author themselves also (incorrectly) calls it a stupa in the first paragraph too. > An ancient Buddhist stupa towered over the time-worn streets, with a large communal pool complete with a wide staircase below. This is ridiculous. You'd think that they understood that the initial discoverer was wrong, and that this was a civilization long predating the existence of Buddhism.