I'm not looking to start drama here, just seeking the fair linguistic opinion of others.

Is this edit an improvement to the article, or does it make it worse?

Greg

It does seem more concise, although the pantomine part should probably have been left in.

Improves.

I thought this was going to be an edit that you were blocked for!

Loses the information of the number of cards; no longer states that it was specifically designed for ease of communication, no longer mentions that it can be useful for people who don't speak the same language.

Now, since it's unsourced, I don't know if any of those things are actually true, but the article says less now than it did before.

Arguably those things don't necessarily belong in the lead, but in a stub where else are they going to go?

"Because the instructions are easily communicated, the test can be administered to language or hearing handicaps."

Can one administer something to a handicap? I thought this was for testing people?

Maybe "handicaps" is the word the editor uses to describe "handicapped people".

Indeed, it was probably written by a language or hearing handicaps. (Of which I am certainly both).

Looks good Whoopsi.

I'm waiting for admins to realize there is no good reason to block Kohs or his socks. It'll be a revelation of monumental proportions.

But what if... Whoopsi isn't Kohsie?

then you've set up a poor innocent newbi to get boned - shame on you

Meanwhile, here's a more accurate video in honor of wikipedia's administrative class;