"

Section 1b of the GACR states, ""it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation."" Refering to MOS:LAYOUT we are drawn to section 3.4 Notes and references. It begins ""For how to generate and format these sections, see Help:Footnotes and Wikipedia:Citing sources"" Wikipedia:Citing sources aka WP:REF includes section 6.1 Variation in citation methods aka WP:CITEVAR. Extracted guidlelines of note from sections 6.1.1 and 6.1.2:

To be avoided
 Switching between major citation styles, e.g., switching between parenthetical and  tags or between the style preferred by one academic discipline vs. another

Generally considered helpful
 Imposing one style on an article with incompatible citation styles (e.g., some of the citations in footnotes and others as parenthetical references): an improvement because it makes the formatting consistent

By following GA-criteria I am led, with no uncertainty, to a sound conclusion and made the reasonable request that all references be made consistent. They are currently a mixed bag of s and . Per WP:CITEVAR this is avoidable and unhelpful, and therefore unacceptable, in my opinion it fails the GAN requirement to follow MOS:LAYOUT closely enough. I will be failing this part of the GA nomination should the article remain a mixed bag, per WP:GACR which is built upon consensus that affects ALL of wikipedia and ALL GA nominations. A local consensus cannot seek to make an exception for one-off nominations, WP:IAR does not apply here.

Let's bear in mind one final point – I don't answer to the likes of you because your flamboyant attitude damages Wiki, it doesn't help it. ''''''{chat} "