If I saw the charts in the pre AI era I would also be confused. I mean it is just awkward and not done like this. OP is right, no one on earth says they put gridlines every so and so ticks anywhere, much less the figure title. Gridlines should be obvious what they are trying to show on a chart like this. They should actually be aligned with the tick marks on the x axis. In fact, why are those on a nice even 10s scale while gridlines are on 8 ticks? If this was undergraduate work I saw at a conference, I'd guess they were hungover when they made it and didn't realize they made the tick marks and axis labels incongruent with eachother, and it should have been 10 marks. I'd still have no clue why they wrote that in the title. I'd guess that they'd never presented a figure like this and guessed what might be important to include.
The fact that we are now in the ai era where figures like this come so easy with no thought is actually even more damning to the article author. How can I trust anything in this article is any good given that they thought these figures were fit to publish? Either they didn't proof the work or they didn't care, and both are pretty bad possibilities.
The fact that we are now in the ai era where figures like this come so easy with no thought is actually even more damning to the article author. How can I trust anything in this article is any good given that they thought these figures were fit to publish? Either they didn't proof the work or they didn't care, and both are pretty bad possibilities.