"although it should be noted that"

News is not significantly edited long after the fact; at Wikinews we would consider that rewriting history, and therefore anathema. It is, of course, extremely challenging to produce quality output when you have only a brief time to do it. Lessons learned from the flaws of one article can only be applied to writing subsequent articles (and if something intolerable, such as a factual error, survives long enough to be archived, we can issue a {{correction}}).

It's useful perspective to realize that this article was written before the current era of review (broadly, before 2009).

Btw, Wikipedia and Wikinews have necessarily different approaches to neutrality. An encyclopedia is predominately summaries of things, which news reporting should avoid as it's inherently subjective and therefore non-neutral; and an encyclopedia is also concerned with presenting inherently subjective judgements that would be rejected at Wikinews as opinion/analysis. A major tool of news neutrality is attribution, which on the face of it could not be effectively applied on a massive scale to Wikipedia. Articles in either of the two projects would be likely to fail badly on various basic criteria of the other project (such as neutrality, but also extending to things like newsworthiness-versus-noteworthiness).