I'm not an active user, as I'm very disgruntled about inaccuracies that persist in far too many Wikipedia articles due to the willful ignorance practised by some Wikipedia editors with far too much spare time on their hands and far too little knowledge and/or experience in their chosen field of knowledge.
Progress!
editI thought this revision (your edit) was much better. I think I like the "very modest" wording from the actual review that you included. It gives a bit more of a flavor of the authors conclusions. But I think the quotation is awkward and including the bit about the fractional days saved in parentheses was a bit awkward as well. I changed to compromise wording that I hope you'll find agreeable. My only concern with my version is that I think "modestly effective" (my version) doesn't necessarily have the same flavor as "very modest effect" (authors' words; your version). But I think it's an improvement over the original. Further thoughts are welcome here or on the talk page. Cheers! Ajpolino (talk) 21:49, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
I couldn't agree more. Thanks for being so human about this @Ajpolino! 'Modestly effective' is a vast improvement to the way it was before I started editing that page. seaniz (talk) 10:22, 16 November 2016 (UTC)