(ec with Marskell) Ottava, You seem to be very upset about this, and I am really clueless as to why (and why you hold this position about NPOV and consensus). Using your reasoning, we should never be able to oppose on comprehensiveness issues either, because if a consensus of the regular editors of the page says that the article is comprehensive, then it must be. FAC's entire purpose is to try to get a larger perspective on whether the article meets the appropriate policies or guidelines (in other words, consensus can change). I do think that the RCC page suffers sometimes because most of its editors have a very strong POV. That is understandable; people usually work on topics they are passionate about (either for or against). I fully acknowledge (and praise) that they are trying to make the article as NPOV as possible, but when you hold a strong POV sometimes it is hard to recognize where neutral actually is. That is why processes like FAC, GAN, and PR are essential, because then you can get (hopefully) the opinions of people who don't hold a strong POV on the topic. I would encourage you to post at WT:FAC to see what the consensus is for how to review an article - are NPOV and comprehensiveness concerns off-limits?  Or perhaps it would be useful to post at WT:NPOV to see whether there is consensus for your view that NPOV is decided solely by consensus.  Please let me know if you initiate a discussion, as I would like to participate.