The bottom line is this; Nobody has complained except   and one other individual, a little truce with him and he had no problem. Including information in collapsible boxes does make the page look neater. I have not gone to the pages that I put collapsible boxes on and counted, but it literally is over a million hits collectively. Nobody has complained. Using blindness and repetivive stress injury, as reasons not to include collapsible tables is a specious argument at best. Collapsible boxes in some instances are the best way to present information without cluttering the page. 
As to the superfluous images, again the opinion of one individual. The article is a general article on eating disorders. Including images of obese individuals or the ravages that having an eating disorder can have on a person serve no purpose. If the same priciples are applied across the board the article on obesity had a number of superfluous images, including the one of an overweight child on a school playground. Someone already commented on the use of that image as being inappropriate. Someone staked out a school playground to take a picture of an overweight child,it is now on more than one article on Wikipedia. How would you feel if that was YOU. Despite the fact the face is not visible she knows it is her, her friends probably do, so that's real nice being an example of an "overweight child" on the internet for all the world to see. Although if someone wanted to tease her I don't think they would use a term a little less politically correct.Somehow that picture is o.k., Penfield's Homunculus, placed near a block of text describing the somatosensory cortex, not o.k., that makes no sense.