Article ( | visual edit | history) · Article talk ( | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Jaguar ( talk · contribs) 13:16, 18 April 2016 (UTC) reply

I shall be reviewing this against the GA criteria as part of a GAN sweep. I'll leave some comments soon. JAG UAR  13:16, 18 April 2016 (UTC) reply

Disambiguations: No links found.

Linkrot: No linkrot found in this article.

Checking against the GA criteria

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar): b ( MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   I recommend merging the sentence into a paragraph in the strikeforce section

   I've cleaned up the First UFC victories section, if that's OK

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a ( reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c ( OR):

   No original research found.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a ( major aspects): b ( focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b ( appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

This meets the criteria, so I'll pass this. It's comprehensive, well written and the refs all check out. Well done JAG UAR  21:34, 19 April 2016 (UTC) reply

Thank you. Much appreciated. -- James26 ( talk) 22:02, 19 April 2016 (UTC) reply