The article was removed by Joelr31 02:45, 9 March 2009 [1].
The article, as it stands, does not meet many of the criteria of Good Article status, let alone Featured Article status, and could do with improvement.
A major problem is in referencing. A number of claims throughout the article are unsourced. Some claims in the article have dubious neutrality. In addition, the lead is insufficiently concise. Catfish Jim and the soapdish ( talk) 13:49, 28 January 2009 (UTC) reply
I had another look at the article this morning, with a view to improve it more. It will take a long time (months) to bring it up to GA status, and there doesn't appear to be any appetite amongst previous contributors to improve it. I suggest it's removed as a featured article until it can again be put through FA nomination. Catfish Jim and the soapdish ( talk) 11:04, 26 February 2009 (UTC) reply