I'd like to point out that not ever critique or nit-pick a GAT member gives is necessarily something that is going to make or break the guide's chances of approval. Personally, I think it's important to be thorough when it comes to content, as guide readers can gain further information and insight by reading the responses of other uses as well as the guide itself. What makes or breaks a guide's approval is pretty much just if the reviewer believes it's something that's overall useful and accurate. So yes, one can nitpick and critique a guide to hell and back and still come away approving it, unless there's information in it that they believe renders the guide unapprovable for whatever reason they have.
A guide can have things that the reviewer thinks is unnecessary or lacking of quality and still be approved. In the case of Longbow's guide, plenty of the unnecessary content was probably fine on its own, but when the unnecessary content is inflating a guide to 50 pages, that might need to be worked on just a bit.
By unnecessary content, I don't mean things like visualization or meditation. I mean the long, drawn-out explanations of what visualization and meditation are. That's what my system saw as unnecessary fluff. We wouldn't ask a guide author to remove sections about visualization or meditation, that's absurd. But, in the case of his guide, a lot of it could be condensed. It's just harder to ask for that sort of thing when it comes to video submissions. I'm not a fan of video submissions for this reason. People generally don't fix their submissions after they get reviewed anyway, but a video submission pretty much kills the chance of them doing that.
So anyway, yes, people can be nit-picky, but I trust that everyone on the GAT is smart enough to where their small critiques and nitpicks don't cloud the bigger picture: is this a guide I think is worthy of being approved, why or why not. GAT members are instructed to always give their reasoning for approval or disapproval, which most of the time does not include all of the smaller points they made along the way.
And, to reiterate something Indigo said, a guide only needs 4/7 people to give their thumbs-up to be approved, and most of the time when a guide doesn't reach that number, there are plenty of reviewers saying "I will review once X changes are made." There is no list of specific criterion a guide must follow to be approved other than following tulpa.info's rules and being grammatically satisfactory, nor is there a rubric that dictates if a reviewer should approve. It's based on the individual reviewer's discretion, how they walked away from the guide as a whole. Abveion claimed our standards are too "specific," really they're anything but. I think other GAT members can attest to that. We really don't have "standards," just general guidelines and reviewer opinion.
If the tone of any of my system's or other people's reviews come off as harsh, I apologize for that. We want to be better than the previous GAT teams that really didn't have any respect to the author in how they wrote their reviews, and have emphasized that reviews should avoid coming off as corrosive. It probably wouldn't hurt to remind people of that again if necessary, sometimes people can get carried away or have a hard time articulating their critiques in a certain way. That being said, I don't think people should assume mal-intent on any GAT member's part. It can be difficult to avoid sounding harsh when writing critiques, so please know that everyone is trying to be helpful to both the author and any readers who might want to use the guide.[/align]