I did put together a criticism section which pretty well defined what I think should go in.  You can say it's too long but you can't say I haven't said what's wrong with the article.  There are some issues with what's in the article, but the real complaint is with what's not in.  The article does not discuss (1) the criticism of the trial by US television commentators; (2) Guede's bad acts prior to the murder and why  as argued by AK and RS lawyers  they make it more likely that he acted alone; (3) The criticism of Mignini, including actions in other cases that relate to this one; and (4) influence of European tabloids on the trial among other things. All of this is specifically discussed by reliable sources. The article now argues for guilt; a substantial majority of reliable sources say innocence or flawed process so there's a real problem.  I don't understand how anyone can say that the neutrality of this article isn't  under dispute by about half of the editors here.