"
Agree with Quiddity on both need for and choice of image for the lead.  Fully support expanding summary, but not by directly repeating content in the article.  Blackash, the page has not been vandalized.  With the exception of deleting a single reference that was neither intelligible nor functional, I was careful to keep all references both intact and with the statements they referenced.  If I missed any, it was unintentional.  If I somehow misconstrued their proper location, please set that right without adding back repetitive material.  I DID remove a LOT of repetitive material, particularly the direct repetition in the lead of two paragraphs from the article.  That's not summarizing. . I reorganized and consolidated a number of verbose, clunky, and grammatically incorrect sentences and paragraphs, in several sections, into concise statements and ideas that flow from one to the next, hopefully building and conveying the idea smoothly.  Word count is not a measure of informative content.  It's supposed to be a concise encyclopedic article about arborsculpture, now being referred to by consensus (this I assume) as tree shaping.  It's not a book. It's not supposed to be a how-to manual.  It's not ""battle of the sculptors and the finer fractional points of their methods,"" nor is it a debate on whose artistic technique is more pure, nor whose book is more popular or true, nor who sells more mirrors.  I strove for neutrality, well aware of the ongoing editing issues among the (IMO) way-too-involved author/editor/artist/arborists who currently monitor this page.  For just a single sticky example, waxing on about one's own (or someone elses) worldwide acclaim is not only not encyclopedic, it's unseemly.  It is made immeasurably more so by adding copious and ever-more-poorly formatted references to the insisted acclaim.  Further, there are several sections I haven't yet hammered at, that need it.  Most particularly the protracted sections comparing arborsculpture to (and from this reader's perspective, defending it from encroachment by) each and every other horticultural art & practice.  These sorts of writing read tensely and uncomfortably, like an argument, detracting from the fascinating topic. There may indeed be too many images for the text. Perhaps one exemplary image per artist is enough after all. ;)   "