I would somewhat agree with LauraHale on the point that GAs are not really Good Articles I have seen some comments on article talk pages post GA or during PR or FAC showing discontent on the GA review that was done Some key points on the topic are missing or language is poor or some other sorts I have recently also been in DYKNs where they felt as good as FACs with all grilling of critical points But i do not understand LH s opposition for a new slot of GAs on Main Page In case LH has doubts against the GA review process i would suggest that GARs should also be done by multiple editors Single editor doing a GA review could sometimes be a reason for missing or overlooking some factors in the article I have seen multiple editors getting involved in DYKNs but hardly seen that happening on GAs T C