Regarding What is the basis of Russian criticism of Antony Beevor's work? I feel that the closure fails to appropriately read what good subjective is in terms of historiography. The question asks for the basis (ie: the historiographical methodology) behind the criticism by historians of the work of a historian.
I am only and specifically taking up the listed reason for the closure in relation to "OPINION." Issues regarding poor community response to certain kinds of question, or questions elicited to encourage discussion—even if they are well formed "Good Subjective" questions—aren't part of this question.
Where does Good Subjective end and Bad Subjective begin in relation to the analysis of historiographical criticism?