Article ( | visual edit | history) · Article talk ( | history) · Watch
Starting review. Jezhotwells ( talk) 14:10, 29 March 2009 (UTC) reply

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b ( MoS): I was a little bewildered by some of the jargon, but it was all wikilinked, so ultimately made sense. I was concerned by the possibility of weasel wording, but in context the description of his career is somewhat akin to a plot line as this is entertainment. Jezhotwells ( talk) 14:52, 29 March 2009 (UTC) reply

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c ( OR): The article is well referenced, as far as I can ascertain the sources are reliable, this is a bit af a grey area as pro wrestling is not heavily covered by mainstream media. I saw no signs of WP:OR Jezhotwells ( talk) 14:46, 29 March 2009 (UTC) reply

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused): The article appears to be broad in its coverage and remains focussed on its subject. Jezhotwells ( talk) 14:48, 29 March 2009 (UTC) reply

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias: The article appears to be free from bias. Jezhotwells ( talk) 14:58, 29 March 2009 (UTC) reply

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.: I see no recent evidence of edit wars. Jezhotwells ( talk) 14:58, 29 March 2009 (UTC) reply

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

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions): All images are corrcet licensed in a manner compatible with Wikimedia's licensing policy. Jezhotwells ( talk) 15:03, 29 March 2009 (UTC) reply

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail: I am happy to pass this article. Jezhotwells ( talk) 15:03, 29 March 2009 (UTC) reply