::::4) Agreed: In the current version of the article, the "aftermath of the battle" is (and not necessarily ought to be) "the main subject of the title 'Assessments'" (13 February). So, why not re-title this section "Aftermath of the Battle"? Not only would re-titling more accurately reflect the section's actual content, but also it might help resolve the undue weight problem. 
 ::::a) Stephen makes the convoy's destruction (i.e., the "aftermath of the battle") key to his assessment of the battle (Stephen, footnote #2), but what about the other eight sources? Where exactly (page numbers?) do they have that precise analysis? 
 ::::b) OK, but why not explain what makes the "wording and tone" of the proposed revisions "unencylopedic"?