I've listed this article for peer review because I think it has the potential to pass a Good Article review. I would appreciate any suggestions that would help its chances of passing the review as well as any other feedback that you feel would be helpful. Thanks, GaryColemanFan 15:13, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• It's looking good. There are a couple of websites used as sources that I have never heard of. I'm not asking you to argue their case or anything, but make sure they aren't fansites, dirtsheets, and they have a staff of writers who fact check. Nikki311 17:34, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I looked over the websites, and I think they all seem okay. Nothing really screamed DIRTSHEET to me. You might want to ask the project, as some of them may be more familiar with the sites that you have used. Nikki311 21:34, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for minor issues of grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APR _t 02:51, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I just posted this exact thing on the peer review for King of the Ring (1994): the lead must be sourced. Even if the information is sourced in the body of the article, the lead must also be sourced as it is the first time the information is mentioned. Nikki311 23:09, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]