"{| class=""wikitable"" style=""text-align:left"" 
 |- valign=""top"" 
 ! width=""30"" | Rate    
 ! width=""300""| Attribute 
 !            | Review Comment 
 |- valign=""top"" 
 | colspan=""3"" | 1.   

  

  
 |- valign=""top"" 
 | colspan=""3"" | 2.   

  

  

  
 |- valign=""top"" 
 | colspan=""3"" | 3.   

  

  

  

  
 |- valign=""top"" 
 | colspan=""3"" | 6.   

  

  

    
 |} 

 Note that the above ""second review"" was passed arbitrarily and that the article itself has not even been thoroughly checked. There are examples of poor grammar, original research, messy referencing, non-neutral sourcing, and the lead is abysmal.  has made an uninformed and incompetent ""assessment"" as a favour to the nominee, not a sound review based on guidelines. There is no evidence to suggest that this GA was passed based on WP:GACR, nor that they understand that this article fails to meet MOS:LAYOUT requirements. This was a petty ""pass"" by an editor who was acting in bad faith for the sake of melodrama, making an uninformed assessment. The nominee calls GAR a ""Russian Roulette"" and GregJackP has proved to be the bullet that kills the process. This review takes the piss by passing a low-quality article without a proper review ever having taken place other than by me. And my review is a God-send compared to Greg's lack of review notes. I hope his ""friend"" is happy with this dysfunctional article, as it is nothing short of a mess. I could write a better article in my sleep. ''''''{}  

 :My, my.  A little prissy, aren't we?  I don't know the original editor, and if you {{tq|could write a better arti