(a) it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;
(b) reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose);[2] and
Before conducting an extensive review, and after ensuring you are viewing an unvandalized version, check the article and its edit history for the following basic problems which are sometimes found in GA nominations.
Done# The article completely lacks reliable sources – see Wikipedia:Verifiability.[7] Done# The topic is treated in an obviously non-neutral way – see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view.[8] Done# There are cleanup banners that are obviously still valid, including {{cleanup}}, {{wikify}}, {{POV}}, {{unreferenced}} or large numbers of {{fact}}, {{citation needed}}, {{clarifyme}}, or similar tags. (See also {{QF-tags}}.)
Done# The article is or has been the subject of ongoing or recent, unresolved edit wars.
Done# The article specifically concerns a rapidly unfolding current event with a definite endpoint.
This review appears to have been moribund since the day it was started, now over five weeks ago. There is no sign of action here, on the article's talk page, or with the article itself. Is there any progress being made, or should it be returned to GAN pool to get another reviewer? BlueMoonset (talk) 16:56, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The reviewer appears to have gotten involved in a hotly contested arbitration shortly after taking this article onboard. All of the other GAN he took on seem to have suffered the same fate. I wouldn't be opposed to returning the article to the pool, providing amadscientist has no objections. I've been hesitant to contact him because I was worried about biasing or influencing the review before it was finished. I will try to make contact on his talk page. --Rawlangs (talk) 16:51, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
^ Compliance with other aspects of the Manual of Style, or the Manual of Style mainpage or subpages of the guides listed, is not required for good articles.
^This requirement is significantly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required of featured articles; it allows shorter articles, articles that do not cover every major fact or detail, and overviews of large topics.
^Vandalism reversions, proposals to split or merge content, good faith improvements to the page (such as copy editing), and changes based on reviewers' suggestions do not apply. Nominations for articles that are unstable because of unconstructive editing should be placed on hold.
^Other media, such as video and sound clips, are also covered by this criterion.
^The presence of images is not, in itself, a requirement. However, if images (or other media) with acceptable copyright status are appropriate and readily available, then some such images should be provided.
^Small articles that have a single main source may still be adequately referenced without the use of inline citations. Inline citations may not be required for some articles; the criteria name the only six types of material that require inline citations.
^Articles on controversial topics can be both neutral and stable, but this is only ensured if regular editors make scrupulous efforts to keep the article well-referenced. Note that neutrality does not mean that all points of view are covered equally: instead no point of view should be given undue weight.
Done# The article completely lacks reliable sources – see Wikipedia:Verifiability.[7]
Undetermined