TCO take:  

1.  I agree with y'all's impressions of the article.  The major thing is to decide what should be in there and get the content.  Right now, it seems very uneven and ad hoc.  Some topics not covered at all (commercial aspects, development of big science).  Some places where they blather on about a quote wrt pure research.  I'd like a little more on the major fields themselves as subheaders, etc.  I bet any one of us would come up with something sort of different, but in any case it would be an improvement over what is in there now.  And if we toss it around, hopefully can cover each other's blind spots and be better than any one singly.  Definitely writing out an outline of topics (perhaps with approximate number of paras) would be a good starting point.

2.  If Dana is just itching to get going on footnotes, would say, why don't you go ahead and pick a format (especially if you are going to do most of the work).  I trust you to put what is best for us out there.  Only caution I would have is that if  you are quivering to redo the citations in this current article, just realize 50%+ of the content may be changing.  It's just not in the state where we have the right content and just need polishing.

71.246.147.40