First of all, I find your remarks offensive, and I suggest the way to dialogue with other editors is not by making disparaging comments without any foundation. You seem to be prone to jumping to conclusions as with your edit summary "self-advertising", again without any evidence. 

 The word seminal does not occur in Young British Artists at all. Presumably you mean the word "iconic". You misunderstand WP:PEACOCK. It applies to editorial observations, not to a widely accepted definition which can be sourced properly. See Wikipedia:PEACOCK#Do_not_hide_the_important_facts. I have added a source from The Sunday Times. There are plenty more, up to 17,400. "Seminal" is also available, as it happens. 

 I haven't done so much work on Young British Artists, but I've looked through and don't see the bias that you state. The material can be referenced, and there is the negative view put as well. As far as Damien Hirst goes, I don't see how you can possibly make your observation of bias. The negative reaction to Hirst is properly represented in the main text, even with its own section. Most of the article is very well referenced with 44 sources.  

 Your tone expresses something of a negative view of Hirst and like artists, and this seems to be colouring your analysis. There is no place for that on wikipedia. We work from a WP:NPOV, which means following the sources, whether they are good or bad, and whether they express our own opinion or otherwise. 

 ''''''''''