I agree that the analysis has been used to suggest the SBT has been "proven," but I also agree that we don't need the excessive detail that exists in this section, and as written, it doesn't fairly represent some of the issues. Some clean-up here which could be done - we don't need the table showing the different antimony levels etc., as there is not really anything the average person can assess. All we need to know is the data was interpreted to show two distinct groups with similar antimony levels which meant two and only two bullets were represented.  

 Further, we don't need this quote: In his testimony Dr. Guinn had some difficulty in stating the precision that he could give to this probability: Dr. GUINN. I wish that I could put a number on it, as we often can do, that is, calculate a probability, but we really don’t have the background information to make a numerical calculation in this case. If he DID state a probability, it is relevant. He didn't, therefore this is not relevant. 

 Similarly, we have several quotes like this: Professor Rahn’s analysis can be found on his “Academic JFK Assassination Site”. All we need here is, after the previous line, a link to his site. It is not relevant information to include the name of his website in the body of the article. And... The analysis was published in 2004 (Rahn K.A., Sturdivan L.M., "Neutron Activation and the JFK Assassination. Part I. Data and Interpretation." Journal of Radioanalytical and Nuclear Chemistry. 262(1):205-213[84] and Part II. Extended Benefits 262(1): 215-222[85] co-authored with Larry Sturdivan, a Warren Commission and HSCA ballistics expert Irrelevant. All we need is the reference. 

 Then, we have this line and quote: The authors identified a deficiency in the Guinn analysis: "This deficiency was not considered in the original data interpretation and resulted in an invalid conclusion in favor of the single-bullet theory of the assassination." Here, we don't need a quote saying "there is a deficiency" when we already know the authors identify a deficiency, we need a quote identifying what that deficiency is, or, better, a description of that deficiency. Why do they disagree? That's what we want to know. 

 Then, this: In August 2006 Sturdivan wrote a response critical of the Randich/Grant paper. [87] At the very least, we should describe that response!  

 Finally, the section "Forensic use of compositional bullet lead analysis" is highly misleading. Sure, the NAA is now discredited as an analysis tool. But, as Sturdivan noted, what is applicable from 2002 onward was NOT applicable in 1963. The section says NOTHING about this point. It should either be removed, or it should be noted that though the NAA is no longer considered of value, this is because of the homogeneity of bullets manufactured today and, the HSCA defenders note, not applicable to the bullets available at the time of the assassination. As it stands, it suggests the analysis has been recognized as useless, an extremely misleading thing to say.  

 Here are my suggested fixes: 1) Describe what the analysis did - it identified the levels of antimony in the bullet fragments and concluded two distinct groupings meant there were two and only two bullets. Then, identify the critique - that the groupings are not necessarily indicative as, basically, there is no justification to conclude the levels of antimony, if similar, represent separate bullets as this assumes a heterogeneity that may not exist. Therefore, there could be multiple bullets represented. Finally, the 2006 response, which states that though the NAA is no longer being used as it is no longer a valid method of discerning different bullets, the bullets from the era - the early 1960s - were NOT homogeneous and therefore differing levels of antimony were present in different bullets, and therefore the NAA could identify with a high degree of probabilty that different groupings of bullets could be associated with single bullets. This would cover the "forensic use..." section, which can be omitted.