: Is your view that there is no circumstance under which anyone can be called "prominent"? I completely agree that there are lots of Wikipedia critics, and many of those who criticize Wikipedia are more prominent than Sanger, however I can't think of any more prominent specifically for their criticism of Wikipedia. The fact that Sanger is among the most cited (if not the most cited) is easily verifiable. Again, I think it does add something to the lead. Consider this scenario: Sanger leaves Wikipedia to do something completely unrelated, and he happens to mention in passing on several occasions some criticism of Wikipedia. Then he's a critic, and this is quite interesting coming from a co-founder, so we might put it in the lead. But the real situation is quite different: not only does he have criticism of Wikipedia, but he publicly pushes this criticism, and the media frequently goes to him for quotes about Wikipedia's shortcomings. In fact, he may be as notable for his criticism as he is for Citizendium (although the two are clearly linked-he uses the visibility he gets from his criticism to get publicity for Citizendium). This distinction really does seem worth highlighting in the lead. I admit it's not a huge issue, but I'm still not understanding the argument that he's not a prominent critic. Would a different word be more appropriate? A "well-known" or "oft-cited" critic or something? (Neither of those sounds as good to my ear.)