User:Chaosdruid/GAreview/Artificial Intelligence

Quick look:
 * 1) The article completely lacks reliable sources ✅
 * 2) The topic is treated in an obviously non-neutral way ✅
 * 3) There are cleanup banners that are obviously still valid, including cleanup, wikify, POV, unreferenced or large numbers of fact, clarifyme, or similar tags. ✅
 * 4) The article is or has been the subject of ongoing or recent, unresolved edit wars. ✅
 * 5) The article specifically concerns a rapidly unfolding current event with a definite endpoint. ✅

Process:
 * 1) If you decide to conduct a full review, read the entire article and check for the following, with reference to the Good article criteria. The article should be:
 * 2) Clearly written, in good prose with correct spelling and grammar. Also look for proper formatting and general organization of the article, with appropriate use of wikilinks and sections as described in those parts of the Manual of Style referred to in the Good article criteria.
 * 3) Factually accurate according to information in reliable sources, preferably with inline citations using either footnotes or Harvard (parenthetical) references. Ideally, a reviewer should have access to the sources cited, and sufficient expertise to verify that the article reflects the content of the sources. At a bare minimum, reviewers should check that the sources used are reliable (for example, blogs are not usually reliable sources), that they support the statements, and that the article contains no plagiarism: any text copied from sources should be contained within quotation marks, or a quotation template.
 * 4) Without original research.
 * 5) Broad in coverage of the topic without unnecessary digressions.
 * 6) Written from a neutral point of view.
 * 7) Stable, with no ongoing edit wars (constructive routine editing is fine).
 * 8) Compliant with image use policy. Images are encouraged but not required. If images are used, they should have free licenses, or have appropriate fair use rationales. ✅
 * 9) Decide if the article meets the Good article criteria as spelled out above.
 * 10) If it does, pass the article by removing it from the nominations page, adding it to the Good article list, and changing the appropriate tag on the article's talk page. A brief note of congratulations or tips for further improvement on the review page is also appreciated. Make sure to add Good article to the article according to that template's documentation.
 * 11) If it does not, decide if a hold is appropriate:
 * 12) Holds should be applied if the changes needed are minor, and can be reasonably expected to be completed within a week or so.
 * 13) If a hold is appropriate, change the status in the templates on both the article talk page and the nominations page to "on hold".
 * 14) If the article's problems lead you to believe that the changes are not likely to be met within a week, fail the article by removing it from the nominations page and changing the tag on the article talk page.
 * 15) Whether you fail an article or put it on hold, always clearly explain on the review page, for the benefit of the regular editors at the article. You can use the Good article criteria as a guide for how to organize your critique; however, the criteria should not be used merely as checklists.  Your review should be extensive enough to allow the article to be improved and renominated, so that it will pass in the future.