::I'm going to be bold here and siphon these out.  If you can detail these in the places where I haven't, that would be great     

 ===Issues about the science sourcing=== 

 Right now, this (in my opinion) is the most pressing issue, especially in the "concerns" section.  To meet basic NPOV standards (including our fringe theories guideline), we need to ensure that antiscientific fringe theories do not go unchecked in the article.  I believe the best way to do so, in the few cases left, is to simply use a source that asserts the consensus and note it after the point.  The source does not have to contextually mention the March, but it would be preferable if one exists (such as the Reason.TV link from earlier).  Thoughts on this?    

 ===TL;DR version=== 

 ===HR933=== 

 ===Formatting of the concerns section=== 

 This should be in prose to match the rest of the article, outside of any other concerns.    

 ===Sourcing in the lead=== 

 There is disagreement about sourcing in the lead, although our policies and manual of style allow for it.     

 ===Removal of Facebook message=== 

 ===Media reception=== 

 Right now, the undue tag remains because the section is weighted toward an untrue allegation regarding media coverage of the march (or lack thereof).  A proposal to shrink the section and note the contrary claims has been floated, is this doable?