Exactly. Ugh. >In the heart of It's clearly the edge of a skatepark. Not "the heart." etc. etc... others have gone through it extensively so I won't do that

Exactly. Ugh. >In the heart of It's clearly the edge of a skatepark. Not "the heart." etc. etc... others have gone through it extensively so I won't do that again, but it's full of gratuitous added content that does not match what's in the picture at all. It seems to be aping some writing style, not going for accuracy. What's more remarkable to me is that the authors of this do not seem to notice. It's bizarre that you would create a project using an approach and then when assessing that project prior to publication, you would just glance at the paragraph without even reading it, and say "looks great" and move on. Details matter. This is absolute crap and we need researchers who can discern crap, not just accept anything. Further down in the post they ask why an image showing a dog as the Mona Lisa is funny. It's actually not funny. It's an old trope, and, as such, super dull. They should realize it's funny only to a subset of people, but they don't seem to even realize that much. This team needs to get out more.