People need to seriously stop calling what goes on at this talk page the forming of 'consensus'. This lastest round included, it is at best just a series of long and rambling discussions involing the 'regulars' making and repeating ad nauseum the same largely POV points, and which always bizarrely seems to end in a vote or other exercise in 1-member-1-voice form of accounting. There's not a single thing about that process which is encouraged on Wikipedia if the goal is to actually form WP:CONSENSUS. The fact that as ever the process has not a single element of independent review or summarisation, and has been as ever completely lite on policy, guideline or reference to common good practice on other peer reviewed articles, only underscores that. And right to the end we still bizarrely had claims that keeping the footnote was acceptable, due to the rather obvious fact that these unproductive rambling sessions more often than not end up with no discernable support for doing anything, so leaving the article in a state in which it could never become Featured because it's such a giant policy violating crap bag, somehow turns out to be the 'consensus'. It cannot be so, by definition. The current version still has major issues, but at least they are now out in the open in plain text, and can at some point be addressed cluefully and independently and without tedious claims that it is the 'consensus' version that can be repeatedly edit warred over to maintain. It's not, and thus it cannot.