And there's nothing wrong with that. The problem is that GA lost sight of its original purpose very early on, and became a mini-FA. I've had decent articles on subjects where not much can be written because of lacking sources rejected from GA - even in its first few months - and so I've given up completely on getting such articles recognised as being "good quality, but can't really go anywhere because they don't have sources or for some other reason can't make FA". In the end, these articles cannot be distinguished from the rest of the tripe that is normally on Wikipedia, and as such complicates things when, say, we want to compile articles illustrating the breadth of our coverage, since this practice effectively accentuates systemic bias.
If there really aren't any reliable sources available, then the article shouldn't be on Wikipedia, since it is OR. Such articles are not what GA was invented for.