# Talk:Miesha Tate

This part seems to add nothing to the article and this fact is not included in other fighters' articles.Maybe we can add this fact back after the fight or not include it at all.It also seems weird to have two citations for it.Just an opinion.(MgTurtle (talk) 11:26, 24 March 2010 (UTC)).
No worries. It was a focal point that a lot of sites picked up on leading into the fight and used for promotional purposes, but most of Frausto's comments were in MySpace photo captions or on Twitter. There weren't really any good references to cite for her side of the feud and the two apparently made up after the fight, so you're right that it isn't necessary now anyway. FemaleMMAFan (talk) 17:23, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Is this section necessary? It doesn't seem consistent with other MMA fighter articles. She isn't a Hall of Famer or have any other distinctions that would warrant this section more than other more notable fighters. This section is also full of quotes that are said about every fighter during promotions, i.e. "they're a great fighter", "they had a great career". If no one has a rebuttal, I'm tempted to remove this section to be more consistent with other MMA fighter articles.   — Preceding unsigned comment added by 148.59.58.246 (talk) 01:36, 16 January 2022 (UTC) 

This review is transcluded from Talk:Miesha Tate/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Jaguar (talk · contribs) 13:16, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

I shall be reviewing this against the GA criteria as part of a GAN sweep. I'll leave some comments soon. JAGUAR  13:16, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
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)
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
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section):  b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR): 
No original research found.
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects):  b (focused): 

It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias: 

It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.: 

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): 

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  JAGUAR  21:34, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

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