Mattisse, please believe me that I had no intention of pre-determining the outcome of the GAR.  As I said, I hadn't even read the article with any great attention when I put it up for GAR.  I then read it, and said that in my view it passed.  I could well be wrong: I'm willing to be put right.

In saying that the prose was OK but not great, I was thinking precisely of WP:WIAGA which requires of a Good Article that "the prose is clear and the spelling and grammar are correct."  This is a lesser hurdle than the "professional" quality required of an FA.  To say this is not a criticism of GA.

Now, again, I could well be wrong with my understanding of the current standards at GA.  I have done plenty of GA reviews in my time, but not recently.  This is why I pinged Geometryguy, an uninvolved editor who has great experience with GA, whose views I respect enormously.  More generally, the point of GAR is to seek comments from the broader community.

Again, if I (or anyone else) wanted to ride roughshod over the GA process, we'd simply have reviewed the article and passed it forthwith.  But no: my purpose in putting the article up for GAR was to defuse the conflict, and get a broader spectrum of views.

The purpose was also to separate out the question of the article review from the issue of the block.  At GAR, we're judging the article, not the editor (or even the reviewer).

I'm sorry if for you this experience has been "horrible."  I certainly have had no intention to "attack" or "bully" you, and indeed have not attacked or bullied you.   (talk • contribs)