(a) it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;
(b) reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose);[2]
I'm not the main reviewer, but as long as I can offer additional input: Why is this article up for WP:GA nomination while it still has major issues/cleanup banners at the top of the page? Per WP:GA#Immediate_failures, that's an immediate failure of GA review..? As of 2 December 2019, the article is tagged (since June 2019) for two issues:
This article's lead section may be too long for the length of the article. (June 2019)
This article contains content that is written like an advertisement. (June 2019)
In checking cleanup banner issue #2, a quick look seemed to me that the article leans on the editorialized side—the lead contains the sentence, Despite its open enrollment, the school consistently produces high test scores and National Merit Semifinalists and Finalists.
Shrinkydinks, Aircorn, I don't know how I missed the original ping, but having taken a look at the article and the editing history of both nominator and reviewer, my inclination is to close this nomination as unsuccessful. Although it was nominated to be a GA the day before another editor placed the problem templates on it, the nominator has never dealt with them, and indeed has only edited once (in August) since the day after the nomination was made. There are verifiability issues as well, with sections being completely unsourced; the nominator is gone, the reviewer has not actually done any part of the review, and hasn't edited on Wikipedia since the end of November, and presumably hasn't even logged on or they would have seen Aircorn's ping, so I think they've had their chance. Unless Aircorn objects, I plan to close this in 24 hours. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:14, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, with an entire unsourced section, valid cleanup banners not addressed for months, and claims in the lead not supported by body text or sources, I think this can be an easy quick fail. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:37, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
^ Compliance with other aspects of the Manual of Style, or the Manual of Style mainpage or subpages of the guides listed, is not required for good articles.
^This requirement is significantly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required of featured articles; it allows shorter articles, articles that do not cover every major fact or detail, and overviews of large topics.
^Vandalism reversions, proposals to split or merge content, good faith improvements to the page (such as copy editing), and changes based on reviewers' suggestions do not apply. Nominations for articles that are unstable because of unconstructive editing should be placed on hold.
^Other media, such as video and sound clips, are also covered by this criterion.
^The presence of images is not, in itself, a requirement. However, if images (or other media) with acceptable copyright status are appropriate and readily available, then some such images should be provided.
Undetermined