I am nominating this featured article for review because I feel there are several criteria no longer being met.
1a Prose is not bad but could be elevated.
1b There was a racial aspect of this event which is missing context and further detail. Talk page post not answered.
1c A few sources aren't meeting "high-quality and reliable" One particular Washington Post article reads like it came from a The National Enquirer hit-piece. A main source used for this article is now a dead link.
1d Concerns were raised on the talk page over POV; post not addressed.
2c There are citations given that don't back up the statements. I found evidence of drive-by editors changing the meaning of sentences.
I attempted to start cleaning up but there are fundamental errors in comprehension of the sources and a lot of information in the sources aren't in the article. I left a message on the talk page about 30 days ago. Brad (talk) 09:16, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
Note An editor had a swipe at the prose making improvement but it's still lacking. Brad (talk) 08:25, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
Delist Other than the prose fixes nothing has been done to address the concerns. I didn't think I would have to say delist for an article I listed in the first place. Please take two minutes to look over the article and you might come to the same conclusion. Brad (talk) 03:45, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
Delist as the editor mainly behind bringing this up to FA in the first place. "I found evidence of drive-by editors changing the meaning of sentences," for me, is the key one. Maybe one day I'll attempt an overhaul and re-run, but at present this has slipped down to ~B-class. Blood Red Sandman(Talk)(Contribs) 11:27, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.