First the link to this week’s complete list as HTML and as PDF.
Halberda is another example, of how a statistically significant result is not at odds with it being completely meaningless. In his animated GIFs the ranges for the different mathematical aptitudes overlap nearly totally, the predictive value of his result is essentially nil.
Zorzi on the other hand is helpful, relevant, novel, and well within the reach of parents even without the help of professionals to make a real difference.
Figure 1 of Ramisch lacks any hint of the relative size and position of panels A and C. Considering the completely unexplained axis coordinates it seems that at least one of the included scales has to be widely off. I don’t mind lapses like these happening, they do. But as they are glaringly obvious at first glance, have none of the four coauthors, none of the reviewers and no editor read that article at all before publication? This kind of thing is not a one-off but something happening all the time in supposedly reputable journals.
Reading Yadin 1972 I’m stuck in a hen and egg problem. Had I read it before visiting Megiddo and Hazor this spring, I might have seen more than an unstructured heap of rubble with bits of wall sticking out. On the other hand, would I have found it as fascinating a read now without having been there first? It is, in any case, exceedingly well written.