:Electronscope, I think you may be misunderstanding the purpose of Good Article Reviews. Your goal here is not to tell Ironholds he's incompetent and shouldn't have dared nominate an article; your goal here is to point out what he can fix it so it meets the (quite lax) Good article criteria. Your attempting to fail the article on factors that aren't included in the criteria - hyperlinking references, words being re-used (which you keep saying in a problem, but not pointing out the re-use of), or a source that's not your preferred one being used - is not constructive. Even if such problems were part of the good article criteria, your goal would be to point out where the article falters so that its editors - Ironholds and I, and possibly others - can fix them, not to wave your hands and say "This is terrible! There's no use even reviewing it if you can't see what's wrong with it!" 

 :It is not required in the GA criteria that an article hyperlink sources, nor that an article use every source that you wish it used, nor that it use the citation format you prefer, nor that it contain images. Nor is it a requirement, for that matter, that article editors hew to your rather strange definition of "run-on sentence," which doesn't match the actual definition (protip: commas do not mean a sentence is a run-on).  

 :Please, please re-read the GA criteria and consider changing your review so that it discusses actual GA-related problems that the article's editors are able to fix, rather than making vague suggestions that we find the problems which you see but we don't (or asking us to change things unrelated to GAN).