"
I see your point about the weakness of the other parts of the article. They will work themselves out in time, especially since the section now tightening itself out can serve as a guideline for the rest of the piece. 
As for my removal of uncited info, you needn't take it personally at all. People usually don't know what needs citation until it is pointed out to them. People usually don't get off their duffs until that info goes bye-bye. Not to put too fine a point on it, but you leapt into action after I repaired the material to the Discussion page, right? 
Lastly,I'd point out that after you told me you were working the piece, I didn't get into an edit-war with you about it. I was happy you were knocking out citations, and (mostly) excellent ones, at that. I gave you the time to put them together, doing no more than adding cn tags to replace those references which weren't that strong. I'm not that hard to work with; I just hate having to cover the same ground repeatedly. Once a citation/section is done, it shouldn't need further examination, like, 'job done; what's next?' That's why I am a stickler for making sure the cites are the best they can be to start out with. Good cites means good articles. GA and FA articles. -  (cast a spell) "