Rarely, if I find an exceptionally sloppy article, I edit it, and comment on how sloppy it was in the edit summary. It's a criticism of the state of the article. Sometimes I also say things like, "The visual editor is evil," when I'm cleaning up lots of messy formatting easily introduced by the visual editor but only visible when using the raw editor. I think some editors' editing approaches can be criticized if the intended result is help them become better editors. But it's not really a good idea to call another editor (or fellow editors in general) lazy, because the truth is, editing here is a hobby that people do in their spare time. Some people are dedicated regular editors, some people edit only once or sporadically, and some people have stuff in their lives that makes it harder to take the time to edit. It's safer to assume good faith of other users in general anyway, rather than jumping to an accusatory conclusion; an assumption of laziness is not an assumption of good faith.