WP LEDE is a guideline rather than a set of rules but I see your point to some extent The trouble is that the article is structured in such a way that criticisms such as Bardi s don t really fit in anywhere He isn t evaluating the device he is evaluating Rossi s claims regarding it And since everything we know about the device beyond the obvious that it is a device which seems to take cold water in at one end and emit hot water and or steam at the other is solely sourced to Rossi Rossi is now flatly contradicting things he said earlier and is still refusing to let anyone do any meaningful independent evaluation at all one has to ask whether we should be implying in our article that it is the device that is now the centre of attention rather than Rossi Perhaps the section entitled Evaluation of the device should be retitled Evaluation of claims regarding the device and expanded Bardi has actually written about the E Cat several times and a little more of his sceptical take on the matter might be as good thing per WP FRINGE and WP PARITY in particular If we can show why Bardi describes the affair as pathological science in more detail we can cover some of the issues that have had to be left out for now as lacking WP RS If we do this there seems no reason why we can t also quote Bardi in the lede if appropriate