On 10/22/07, Steven Walling <steven.walling(a)gmail.com> wrote:
You obviously know little about the GA criteria, in letter and in
practice.
You claim that all GA's "have to have a picture" (paraphrase). Not a
single
reviewer I know makes the mistake of thinking images are required. Review
templates even stress this explicitly. Only proper image licenses and
rationales are required for images present. But you can pass GA without an
image.
I've read them; in letter they are almost as vague as FA requirements are.
But both FA and GA have unspoken terms of reference. Re the image thing, I
picked up on that because of Thes; that surprised me, since even I have
never seen that happen, so I assumed it was a recent development. In any
event, congrats, you've refuted one problem with GA without addressing the
bigger issues raised.
An article shouldn't have to be comprehensive to be a GA; the standards
explicitly don't use that word, since that's reserved for FAs. But in
reality, most GAs take a comprehensive approach; those that are "broad in
coverage" despite being short aren't really represented in the list of GAs,
if that sample of the latest GAs approved is anything to go by.
Johnleemk