"

 It seems heavily slanted in favor of Greenpeace. For example:
- the article states that they activists ""attempted to board,"" but not ""trespassed.""
- ""Certain pharmaceutical drugs are kept in a safe. The Russian authorities broke the safe after they took the vessel.[36]"" Sounds like it was written by GP. Relies on a GP source.
- ""Two activists managed to attach themselves to the platform and attempted to climb despite being blasted with water, whilst another activist was unable to attach themself to the platform."" Aside from the poor style, the poor construction, and the awkward attempt to make it gender neutral, it reads like the person that wrote the sentence wants the reader to cheer for the GP activists. What does it mean ""to attach oneself to a platform""? 
- ""Russian authorities forcibly took control of the Arctic Sunrise, which was boarded from a helicopter by fifteen Federal Security Service officers in balaclavas, armed with guns and knives."" Is it unusual that the Federal Service would wear balaclavas or arm themselves with guns and knives? Given the task that they were performing, such a uniform seems routine.
- ""At the time of the boarding, the Arctic Sunrise was in Russia's EEZ but not within the safety zone around the oil rig, and permission was not sought to board it from the Arctic Sunrise's flag state, the Netherlands."" Does Russia need permission from NL to board a ship that is clearly dedicated to enabling activists to trespass on a Russian oil rig? It's implied. If it's true, it should be noted. If not, it should be removed. 
- ""It is alleged that crew members and activists were punched and kicked during the forced boarding."" Alleged by whom? Why were they punched and kicked? Were the guards using more than the necessary amount of force to subdue non-cooperative and/or combative arrestees? 
- The use of the monicker ""Arctic 30"" implies a sympathetic viewpoint. Just because certain media have used the term, doesn't mean that WP should also. Just because certain media organizations are sympathetic doesn't mean WP should be also. It becomes a biased article when it uses such monickers that are intended to create sympathy for those arrested. 
- Nearly the entire ""Responses"" section is irrelevant except for the responses and requests from the Gov't of NL. Seriously, does anyone really consider it WP worthy that a reporter wrote something on Facebook?
- The ""Greenpeace Announcements"" section seems like a thinly veiled medium for advocating GP's position. Perhaps a ""Russian Government Announcements"" would balance the article a bit, but the idea of such a section seems silly. 
- International Reaction section. Again, seems like a thinly veiled medium for listing anyone and any no one that supports GP. I don't see the relevance. Additionally, how is this section different from the ""Responses"" section?"