`{| class=``wikitable`` style=``text-align:left`` |- valign=``top`` ! width=``30`` | Rate    ! width=``300``| Attribute !            | Review Comment |- valign=``top`` | colspan=``3`` | 1.       |- valign=``top`` | colspan=``3`` | 2.         |- valign=``top`` | colspan=``3`` | 3.           |- valign=``top`` | colspan=``3`` | 6.           |}  Note that the above ``second review`` was passed arbitrarily and that the article itself has not even been thoroughly checked. There are examples of poor grammar, original research, messy referencing, non-neutral sourcing, and the lead is abysmal.  has made an uninformed and incompetent ``assessment`` as a favour to the nominee, not a sound review based on guidelines. There is no evidence to suggest that this GA was passed based on WP:GACR, nor that they understand that this article fails to meet MOS:LAYOUT requirements. This was a petty ``pass`` by an editor who was acting in bad faith for the sake of melodrama, making an uninformed assessment. The nominee calls GAR a ``Russian Roulette`` and GregJackP has proved to be the bullet that kills the process. This review takes the piss by passing a low-quality article without a proper review ever having taken place other than by me. And my review is a God-send compared to Greg's lack of review notes. I hope his ``friend`` is happy with this dysfunctional article, as it is nothing short of a mess. I could write a better article in my sleep. ''''''{}   :My, my.  A little prissy, aren't we?  I don't know the original editor, and if you {{tq|could write a better arti