Unfavorable Wikipedia coverage is not automatically biased. A balance review asks whether significant viewpoints are represented fairly and proportionately to reliable published sources, rather than whether the subject likes the resulting portrait.
01
Build a source map
List the article's main claims, the sources cited, their publication dates, and the attention those sources give the topic. Read beyond headlines. Identify whether multiple citations repeat the same original report or provide genuinely independent coverage. A company's response may be relevant, but its own statement does not automatically outweigh extensive independent reporting.
02
Examine placement and proportion
Balance can be affected by a headline, lead paragraph, amount of detail, image choice, or missing context. Wikipedia's neutral-point-of-view policy does not require equal space for every opinion. For example, a brief isolated criticism may not deserve half an article, while a widely documented controversy may warrant substantial treatment. The question is proportionality supported by sources, not a fixed positive-to-negative ratio.
- Note a specific omission, unsupported claim, or disproportionate emphasis.
- Identify reliable sources that explain why it matters.
- Propose a narrow adjustment rather than a promotional rewrite.
03
Discuss the evidence openly
Check previous talk-page discussions before opening another one. If you have a connection to the subject, disclose it and use the appropriate procedures. Explain how the proposed change improves the encyclopedia for readers. Do not recruit employees to overwhelm a discussion or assume that disagreement means the community is hostile. Different language editions may make different editorial choices.
Frequently asked questions
Can we demand equal positive and negative coverage?
No. Neutrality is not a quota. The prominence and quality of reliable sources guide the treatment of significant viewpoints.
Does an omitted award prove bias?
Not necessarily. Consider its significance, independent coverage, and relevance to the article. A minor accolade may not belong even when it is genuine.
Continue with your next step
Related guides on this topic
Sources and policies
Check the current policy before submitting a request.
You do not have to figure out the next step alone.
Share the URLs and explain your concern. We will review the context and explain which options are worth assessing.
Request a confidential reviewOr call (307) 429-2531Educational information, not legal advice. Outcomes depend on the facts and decisions made by third parties.