I'd hardly say this is blind.... after all the article has suffered extensively since June 5th. Going through the phrasing of everything now could take a good editor of an encyclopedia days, and we'll be fighting against other edits. Look at the following:
"Everything Revere told his British captors had a single goal, to move the soldiers away from Lexington, where he had left Hancock and Adams. Revere had reason to believe the patrol's mission was to arrest the two Patriot leaders. He and other captives taken by the patrol were still escorted east toward Lexington, until about a half mile from Lexington they heard a gunshot. The British major demanded Revere explain the gunfire, and Revere replied it was a signal to "alarm the country". A few minutes later, came a flurry of gunfire that seemed to alarm the British captors even beyond the panic they were already in."

All of that is based on a single book, takes up a significant portion of the article, and itself the source hasn't been verified to be objective. The style its written in suggests to me it may also be lifted word for word from the book, and to me at least seems to break NPOV. And that last line, "alarm the British captors even beyond the panic they were already in" takes a whole lot of liberties, nevermind certainly not being encyclopedic.
@ JeffJonez: I'm proposing a revision from 4 days ago, not a week. And much of what remains in the article from since the June 5th edits began is hardly verifiable or objective, and certainly doesn't maintain a neutral tone to the article. Determining where and when this all began is proving troubling as so much was added and removed, then added again. This is hardly just a few malcontents.