:::How exactly do the relevant sources become more relevant after the election?  Unless part of the NPOV controversy was 'She is or is not vice president of the united states', the election does not change the validity of the question.  Yes, it is a hot topic that must be rigorously examined, but that does not mean shying away from discussing a difficult topic.  After examining the content, I feel the article is closer to NPOV than it was, but it is currently POV.  Then again, consensus seems lacking in certain key areas.  I am also not a big fan of the POV tag.  If the rape kit information is to be left out pending arbitration, then it should have a POV tag.  If it is included, then it is closer.  Generally speaking, I am not satisfied that the tone of the article accurately reflects the tone set by Sarah Palin on the national state.  She is, by definition, polarizing.  To her supporters, she can do little wrong and is an ardent patriot.  To her opponents, she is a demonic clown who cannot be allowed to be within one heartbeat of the presidency.  There are, from my observation, few 'neutral' observers about her at all; and with respect to the content, I don't feel that the article goes anywhere near measuring that controversy in a way that accurately reflects the subject.  The trick is doing that in a way that is still NPOV.  Thus, if, by lack of insight into her controversial nature, the core article does not reflect this, then I must definitely vote for the POV tag.  Lack of information can sometimes, by itself, convey a view point.