I have just finished editing the article on Albert Marquet. A few minor facts, and some middle range ones were missing. The English was not idiomatic, but now it is. I have no idea who wrote it originally, but that person did not really approve of the artist nor approve of his work.
I had a friend who died a few years ago named Lawrence Campbell. He wrote art reviews for some 30 years for Art News, when it was the number 1 American art magazine. He made it a rule to never write about anyone of whose work he did not really approve. Even if he were to review a group show, he chose shows with a good deal of work he enjoyed, only. I like his attitude very much.
I would not, for example, ever write bios of any German Expressionists because I have major problems with all of them. Thus I would not be fair to them in a biography. I think all of us should have that attitude if we are writing biographies of any artist, musician, poet Etc.
There are really bad people who have lived in the world, certainly they deserve a biography which notes what they were like and what they have done. But an artist whose colors are not bright enough, nor his perspective deviant enough from the norm for a writer, should not be that writer's topic. This is especially true in Wikipedia, where that bio will be the major source on the artist for everyone from that time forward.
I have made a second foray on that page. This time I was not allowed in by wikipedia. I don't know why, since I have been a member for a while now. My new changes, which go well with what is there, have perforce become footnotes, although only one line should have been one.