This article received its FA rating back in 2007, at a time when the standards at FAC were considerably more relaxed than they have since become. Looking through this article, it is apparent that it does not meet present FA standards; indeed, it may even struggle to reach GA status. There are various sentences throughout the article that are simply unreferenced; the formatting of the citations that are used are haphazard; various sections, such as "Township", are badly organised and full of stand alone sentences; and there is an over-reliance on free web sources as opposed to more expert, print sources. I appreciate that a lot of time and effort probably went into getting this to FA status back in the noughties, but it is now time that we send this along to featured article review. Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:53, 28 February 2020 (UTC)