[whakim]

I don't think that it's useful for articles like this to try to educate readers on the way that a precision-recall curve works (and how that differs from the statistical definition of accuracy). Honestly, that would just confuse the vast majority of readers when it's simpler to point out that the tests produce more false positives than they might otherwise expect. Also note that even if we want to be incredibly pedantic, the article never calls the tests "inaccurate" and instead uses a layperson term without a hidden definition ("wrong").