" 

 ::::This has gone long past an overview.  From an outsiders point of view, if you read the article as it currently stands it does not paint a logical picture.  It picks quotes and details out, but there's no information as to what these quotes relate to (or the timing or legal reasoning has been culled in trying to trim stuff out).  It's pretty much impossible at the moment to garner what is actually going on and why, for what reason - because the actual crux of the issue is only covered halfway down the page.   

 ::::It follows a somewhat unusual order of events, throwing 2008 in amongst details from 2005.  Really Palins accusations should be clubbed together as part of the later response away from the ""closed case"" (otherwise you're creating an argument).  It appears, glancing at Wootens wiki, that at some point a lot of the language has been copied over wholesale - then subsequently added to (and culled of presumably irrelevant detail).  This has caused a degree of confusion.  I'm not sure if all that information is required (or indeed if anything but a very quick overview of the charges and outcome is needed - an in-line link would suffice here to Wootens wiki really because otherwise it's just repeating itself). 

 ::::To hit on a few points:  Why does the article start in 2005, reference allegations from 2007/08, then bounce back to 2000/01, then back to 2005 and allegations again from 2008 (looks similar to the format of Wootens wiki).  It then goes on through a length section in 2005, before again introducing Palins comments in the midst of the article.  We have had no information about Palin, why these comments are emerging or what relevance they have to the 2005 case other than she's making these claims.  Inserting the 2008 stuff next to 2005 again is creating an argument in a supposedly closed case. 

 ::::It then moves to 2005 for the divorce hearing, and here we have actual relevant information from 2006 and 2008.  This is relevant because it is ongoing.  Then we have a list of his crimes/charges.  Do we really need this in its entirety?  These details appear to be included in Wootens own wiki page?  Can they be condensed, made sharper and clearer?  Again provide an in-line link to the Wooten wiki page where they can be covered in detail? 

 ::::Then we come to the suspension - at which point we have the confusion of the 2005 stuff, then for some reason a batch of quotes from 2008 again.  Why the quotes from 2008?  I mean what has prompted them to come out at that point to say these things.  There's no prior information as to what has gone on in the intervening 3 years since Wootens suspension (other than the child custody battle). 

 ::::I think it would be clearer to place Palins quotes/claims in with the 2008 details and claims subsequent to the 2005 case, rather than trying to fit them in.  "