In many contentious articles, there is a tendency to add mountains of detail to explain why something is "good" or "evil".
In general, the more stuff showing just how "good" or how "evil" something or someone is, the more of that stuff is of relatively minor significance to the reader.
If a person is a serial killer, it is sufficient to show just enough reliable sources for the primary claims. That we could find a source for "This person put a tack on his teacher's chair" may seem to ice the case for how evil he is, but, in reality, all it does is weaken the article.
An article of 100,000 words is actually far weaker than one of 10,000 words restricted to the key facts or issues on a topic or person. 100 pieces of negative information about a person is weaker than 10 of the strongest pieces.
The extra 90,000 words are simply a sledgehammer aimed at the topic, and add nothing of value for readers seeking information and not masses of evidence to show good or evil in their required light.