Not incorrect, but when the etymology of each part of a compound is also repeated, it often makes it harder to read because it kind of "derails" the general idea.
I am not trying to argue for arguments sake, but it seems like we should be adding to not deleting from the entries. I understand if it is so confusing that no-one in their right mind could understand it, or if it was so obscure that it would never be used, but the information removed is "once-removed" (pardon the pun) and I feel relevant. I don't know. Speednat (talk) 17:27, 4 January 2013 (UTC)