Jimmy Wales wrote: This is a common problem we have, especially with biographies of living people. They tend to develop by people adding various facts piecemeal, without any attempt to think about how to organize an encyclopedia article about the subject. At most they manage to accomplish a rough chronological sequence, heavily weighted to recent events of course. Unless somebody comes along to synthesize the material, it will remain incoherent. So the solution, it would seem, is to encourage editors to tackle an article in its entirety, or find more people willing to do so. This is one reason the featured article process is so important, because it's really this kind of treatment that is the key to featured status. Biographies generally are also very vulnerable to a form of POV-pushing I call death-by-anecdote, and both of the examples Carr picked suffer from it. The rambling recitation of chronological facts encourages people to add all manner of trivial incidents, ephemeral news that does not contribute to any greater understanding of the subject. Often editors will key on mentioning every inconsequential matter they can find to put the subject in a negative light (or alternatively to engage in hagiography). Attempts to "NPOV" this produce a back and forth in which the discussion of some trifle grows out of all proportion to its significance. --Michael Snow