  I agree. There are many parts of this article, specifically those that are attributed to Arceri-Bianchini, that are written very poorly and are exceedingly difficult to follow. I do not believe this to be a problem inherent to the source text, but rather to the person that wrote them in this particular article. When compared to other articles dealing with similar topics, this entry is outright terrible, not necessarily in the accuracy of its content, but rather its presentation and execution.