Wikipedia talk:Arguments to avoid in feature discussions

There are some arguments that should be avoided
By longstanding agreement, objections on an FAC must be theoretically actionable. So, for instance, "I don't like this subject" would be an argument to avoid, because that isn't relevant to the quality, and there is no possible way to fix that. -Amarkov moo! 04:28, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

dichotomy
The text Marskell contests actually says:


 * ''Our copyediting rules are guidelines, which are recommendations; they should be followed (as guidelines ought to be), but it is better to have a clear, well-written, neutral, accurate article with copyediting problems than a badly written and erroneous polemic with perfect dashes and italicization. Copyediting the well-written and accurate article would improve it further; but a review that has had only style concerns addressed is incomplete.

This is not a dichotomy. It says that policy concerns and readability are more important than most copyediting details, when we must choose which to do, but getting both right is better. That's a threefold division, fourfold if we include the article unsatisfactory on either count. (If this masks a disagreement on whether bias and hyphens are equal flaws, he should make that case.)    Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:55, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Why not both?
On first reading it seems to me that one of the key points that the essay seeks to make is that "it is better to have a clear, well-written, neutral, accurate article with copyediting problems than a badly written and erroneous polemic with perfect dashes and italicization." To which my question would be: if an article is to "exemplify our very best work", why can't we require both? J.W inklethorpe talk 19:56, 21 September 2007 (UTC)