The specific rationale wouldn't be something one could really explain in less than a few pages for each of those. Sure, but something should be said as to the

The specific rationale wouldn't be something one could really explain in less than a few pages for each of those. Sure, but something should be said as to the reason for inclusion, if only to direct people as to were to get a better understanding. As it is it reminds of the many "best of" lists (movies of all time, etc.) where some suspect or opaque selection process is used and the results put out as if the veracity is just to assumed. Great for starting conversations at parties, perhaps. I am pretty sure that for most of the authors, however, a good Wikipedia entry will throw out a few sentences that give someone an idea. I have roughly zero confidence in anything on Wikipedia that is not a matter of hard science. I'd much prefer a comment from a single person who admits biases upfront than the subtly distorted content of Wikipedia.