Skimming through the article I noticed that the author uses imperial measures instead of metric. In the scientific world, that's a sign of a poor work.
The author uses metric units except in the case of viewing distance, which is likely to present a more intuitive distance to the (I assume) primarily American audience. The mix of metric and imperial is a bit weird, but you can see it as a case of using metric where the things being measured have a strong convention of metric units (wavelength, luminance) and using imperial where it doesn't really matter (viewing distance).
Really? I get that it's not the norm, but to judge the whole piece _purely_ on the choice of units seems rather judgemental. The imperial system, while unconventional, still works fine.
It works, but it's a warning sign, similar to a scientific paper not written in LaTeX or without a list of citations at the end is likely to have significant issues.
If you have so many papers to go through that you've started using such 'virtue signaling' as a means of filtering through them all, fine. But to apply such a method and then _take the time to comment about it_ completely defeats the purpose.
