also whereas i agree with your description of how material has to be included in wp i take exception with michael johnson's comment above there are several authoritative scientists who disagree with the mainstream of peer reviewed papers the reason why they're not in so far is essentially decided on an interpretation of wp weight as with any rule interpretation it is liable to be 'soft' and subjective and this is this interpretation that good or wrong has so far been 'applied' by a group of editors so there could be a criticism section in this article per wp's rules gravity has one it all comes to how wp weight is interpreted and who interprets it