According to Iridescent.....
Unsurprisingly, this seems to be because it was 90% written by EEng (T-C-L), one of Wikipedia's less friendly and more volatile users, and he has declared it should not be put up for GA review without his express permission, unless or until he has sufficient time to dedicate to it. Which he does not. He does graciously admit though, after a long list of reasons why not......any formal assessment process on this article is likely to be extremely contentious, draw in a number of Wikipedia's noisier personalities, and there's a non-negligible chance it will result in either multiple blocks or an Arbcom case.
There appears to be more context, but I can't be bothered to navigate his 347 section talk page to figure it all out. Maintaining such an unreadable/unlinkable talk page is one of his many primadonna privileges.of course, the article's not my property and it's not my decision to make
With no sense at all of the sheer irony given who he is talking about (an incurably rude and disruptive personality whose idea of good manners is most definitely not within the mainstream), Iridescent helpfully informs....
So I guess all we need now is an experienced Wikipedia editor who is totally disillusioned with the site and just wants to cause some mayhem and piss off one of their worst users......for science, of course.it's the height of bad manners bordering on outright disruption to make a drive-by nomination of someone else's work against their wishes for a review process which you know is going to generate large amounts of work for them
Anyone know where we can find such a person?