No. "Tighter, clearer and easier to read?" There's no fucking content left! None whatsoever! There's nothing but one short and vague paragraph about the book, and a "literary significance and criticism" section that's a worthless joke. The fucking article is a skeleton compared to the previous one - not even a skeleton, but a small scattering of loose bones. At least a skeleton implies some structure. The version currently 'live' is a pathetic excuse for an entry on ANY topic on Wikipedia, being as it is stub-length and featuring a bare minimum of information, let alone an entry about a complicated and detailed book, especially a complicated and detailed book that is as controversial and has pushed the envelope as far as Hogg. If the detailed plot summary and character analysis section was too long, then for God's sake, edit it to make it more concise if you want - don't just remove the whole damn thing! 

 If your house was cluttered and you hired a maid to clean it up, and then returned from work to find that every single thing in your home had been thrown into a dumpster and carted off to a landfill except for your microwave, your refrigerator and a few pairs of pants and socks, would you consider that to be a satisfactory "cleaning" job? If you asked your secretary to organize your office and she threw all of your papers out the window, would that be acceptable? Fuck no! But the equivalent of these scenarios has been done to this article and it is an absolute butchery.