I have randomly sampled many articles in the [[[Featured Articles]] page, which are some of the best articles Wiki has to offer (wow, some are good!). (N.B., I don't see PETA listed.) I found that many articles have criticism sections. Many have controversy sections. Many have Trivia sections. The articles provide all the info the reader requires in a well-laid out format. Look at this one: Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms for example; I could care less about what the article says (as with PETA, to be sure) - but I care deeply that it says it all and it says it right. The crtisicsm/controversy sections do not seem to be attracting undue attention in those articles. I suggest the reason for their excellence is that these articles are written correctly, being unbiased, balanced and written by authors who have no agenda. In short, the reasons you list do not withstand scrutiny, even though you make think they do - that is the definition of specious.