Full Picture

Article analysis:

The article is generally reliable in terms of its content, as it provides detailed information about the research conducted, including the two different systems used for the study, as well as the spatial resolution of the derived DSM and its validation results. However, there are some potential biases that should be noted when reading this article. Firstly, it does not provide any counterarguments or alternative perspectives to consider when discussing the use of UAS for detecting deformations in dikes over time; instead, it only presents one side of the argument without exploring other possibilities or solutions that could be used instead. Additionally, there is no mention of possible risks associated with using UAS for this purpose, such as safety concerns or potential damage to property due to malfunctioning drones. Furthermore, while it does provide some evidence for its claims made throughout the article (such as validation results), more evidence could have been provided to further support these claims and make them more convincing to readers. Finally, there is a lack of discussion regarding ethical considerations when conducting this type of research; while it does mention that it was funded by EU grants from “DredgDikes project”, there is no further discussion about how this funding may have impacted or influenced their findings or conclusions drawn from their research.