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.