On 10/22/07, Steven Walling steven.walling@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