What annoys me about encyclopedia articles

I'm aware that no article is perfect, and I've got poorly written ideas of my own. Though its frustrating running into encyclopedia and other articles on subjects, that are poorly sourced, poorly written, and reflect the writer's lack of knowledge (while pretending to know more than they do).

Looking through the Encyclopedia Britannica's article on the Baltic Languages, in the section on their developement, we find this:

"By the middle of the 1st millennium BC, the Proto-Baltic area was already sharply split into dialects. From the middle of the 1st millennium AD, the Baltic language area began to shrink considerably; at that time the greater part of Baltic territory, the eastern part, began to be inhabited by Slavs migrating from the south. The Balts there were gradually assimilated by the Slavs; complete assimilation probably occurred around the 14th century. One of these Baltic tribes, the Galindians (Goljadĭ), is mentioned in a chronicle as late as the 12th century. The protolanguage of the so-called Eastern Balts split into Lithuanian and Latvian (Latgalian) around the 7th century. The other languages of the so-called Eastern Balts became separated probably at the same time. Selonian and Semigallian could have been transitional languages between Lithuanian and Latvian. Only Curonian, which some consider to be a transitional language between East and West Baltic, might have developed somewhat earlier. Moreover, the name of the Curonians occurs in historical sources earlier (ad 853: Latin Cori) than the names of the other tribes of the so-called Eastern Balts."

Chunky paragraph aside, this is really sloppy and hard to follow. It looks like someone published their pre-published notes as the completed product.

Another problem, is that they don't state their evidence for ProtoBaltic as splitting from ProtoSlavic (assuming it did, and that its not an areal family) during the 2nd millenium BCE, nor that it was split into 2 dialects by the 1st millenium CE. I'm not saying that it wasn't, but can't you point to the evidence?

I guess this wouldn't be a problem if half the internet didn't parrot the same  wordy substance-light article, making an already obscure subject like historical linguistics, even harder to learn more about.

The way that I would have written this, would be to split it into at least three paragraphs. One that dealt with the language family as a whole, and the period before the split. Then the next paragraphs about each of the  Baltic language family groups individually.