IME it's a question for any Wikipedia page. I remember a mathematics professor reviewing a page in their field, saying it omitted key topics and gave prominence, as major figures, to people the reviewer hadn't heard of.
Also, I've experienced that any minor topic can be controversial or political to someone. For a page I'm almost certain you've never heard of, I saw someone create an article in a newsy blog that that supported their made-up claim and cite it in Wikipedia, then cite Wikipedia in the article, and then give interviews to other websites saying the same thing, creating a web if citations. Even after I tracked it down and fixed it - a lot of work to do for free for a low-traffic Wikipedia page - they waited a month and started again. I ran out of time (and trust).
In my opinion [1,2] is a better source to get an overview of what actually happened.
I am biased though, in this case.
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=STl7-_f4_eA [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=beUt5Ke_DqU
Online: https://britannica.com
That said... https://www.nature.com/articles/438900a
General rule of thumb is the deeper and more topical you go on wikipedia, the more alert your BS detector needs to be. It's not perfect, but it's once of the best sources we have today.
My perception is that the more popular and controversial topics are more likely to attract editors, but also BS. The Mohammad Ali page may attract plenty of BS, intentional or unwitting (lots of people have ideas about Ali); the page on the 1928 Olympic boxing champion probably doesn't attract much of either.
> the more alert your BS detector needs to be
Also, I think the "BS detector" is the most powerful mechanism for spreading mis- and disinformation. People who think they have one are the most prone to being fooled, and I think research shows that. Beyond obvious flaws, unless you already know the correct and complete information (omissions can be just as BS as outright errors), you won't be able to spot errors or omissions.
Think of it this way: Using your BS detector, could you edit your own writing to fool someone else? I think I could easily pass most people's 'BS detectors'. Imagine what someone paid to write BS can do - or just look at the research about massive troll farms and disinformation campaigns.
Finally, the fact is that BS spreads at a magnitude unimagined in human history. Evidently, the BS detectors aren't helping. And if you think you are smarter than everyone else, you are the most vulnerable (also demonstrated by research).
> it's once of the best sources we have today.
IMHO Encyclopedia Britannica is always better where it has coverage (i.e., because I can trust it), as is Google Scholar, authoritative websites by experts, and better journalism. If I want to know about the deer tick, I use a website such as Tree of Life (tolweb.org).