I appreciate your viewpoint, Keithbob. While I agree that a rewrite to be more concise is a reasonable future goal, I certainly disagree that the revised sections I've prepared "perpetuate" any problems; they simply don't address (and weren't designed to address) the concerns you raise. They are merely intended to correct inaccuracies, update figures, make language clearer, and verify information. I strongly object to the notion that the "writing style is deeply flawed"—I am always careful to write in an encyclopedic tone, with NPOV in mind. Perhaps these new versions are not perfect, but I do submit that they are an improvement. Even if this more detailed material should eventually be forked, I think what I am writing now could be the basis of that fork. So I'll hope you reconsider, however I will also ask others for their views. Best,  (Talk · )