I agree this article is not based on Sarah Palin. That is why I want the revert. Since those comments many edits have been made to the article, and it would be foolish to assume those edits were made solely with intent to improve the article. I think this talk page alone is enough evidence of that. Prior to comments made, the article hadn't been edited in weeks and most of the edits prior to that were minor edits, mostly a bunch of grammar and some reworking of sentences and sentence structure. I think the lack of editing of the article and the nature of previous edits shows that for such a longstanding article, there was a silent consensus that the article was good and needing very little. 

Now look at it. The section on the ride alone dominates the article, much of it relates to whether or not Revere was warning who or what when prior to June 5th such sections and commentary were neither present nor viewed as necessary to article. Ask yourself, and the guidelines, this: which version of the article, now or prior to the extreme amount of editing that took place, was most closely meeting the criteria for a good article?