You will not find a better explanation of why Wikipedia is so shit, than this....
The issue with articles on big topics or topics of major significance is that they are very difficult to write on. To use an example from the content area I’m most familiar with here Pope is no doubt a really shitty article filled with POV and broad statements (from zealots of both sorts) containing vague references, in need of both more and less citations at the same time, and likely all but impossible to get to FA because of the nature of the office and simply how much has been written about it. Compare this to Papal conclave, March 1605, one of the least significant political events in history, but one where it’s possible to write a halfway decent article. As an amateur who has a fair amount of historical research skills/access to a research university library as an alumnus, I can write on that small event. It’s much harder to write on the broad concept. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:58, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
This is how Wikipedia works. Or rather, doesn't.
It's quite pathetic in its lack of ambition or even insight, it really is. As I'm sure anyone who has studied Wikipedia can appreciate (not this fool then obviously), the theoretical model of Wikipedia is not and never was about one amateur trying to write an article like Pope all by themselves or in a relatively short space of time.
It is meant to be a collaboration, and it should be well within the reach of people who claim to have research skills and access. And no, seriously, for a large topic like Pope, you're not remotely supposed to read every book out there. Your so called research skills are meant to be able to identify the most useful for your task.
The Wikipedia model is most certainly not for vital articles like Pope to be left in a shit state because editors find it too hard to maintain, and are instead off working on some tiny niche page that even they admit nobody is going to want to read.
If Wikipedia can't get Pope to Featured Article status, then the entire operation is a sham. Q.E.D.