Still fails to satisfy 3a and 4 with insufficient commentary. Prose issues still exist, including some examples from the previous FGAN, and the newly added section lacks clarity. This analysis of the case? Of the current law? Does the text endorse the analysis as the current law? Something else? Failure to satisfy these criteria have led me to fail this article again. If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it to Good article reassessment.