 | Noah Syndergaard has been listed as one of the Sports and recreation good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. Review: June 1, 2022. (Reviewed version). |
| This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
 | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Semi-protected edit request on 4 June 2016 edit
 | This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
"Two hit two" be changed to "To hit two" -- spelling is incorrect 67.177.182.220 (talk) 02:59, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
- Why is his team listed as the Mariners? 161.185.161.16 (talk) 19:35, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
GA Review edit
| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
- This review is transcluded from Talk:Noah Syndergaard/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Cherrell410 (talk · contribs) 01:29, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
First Thoughts edit
Just glancing throughout the article, it looks like the article is well-sourced and has lots of information, including statistics, dates, and pictures. I'm already thinking that it will be a successful article.
Immediate failures edit
Passes all immediate failure criteria, making it further reviewable.
Criteria edit
I took all of the criteria listed from Wikipedia:Good article criteria.
Well Written edit
- The prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience.
- Spelling and grammar are correct, and it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
Verifiable with no original research edit
- Contains a list of all references
- All inline citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons.
- It contains no original research.
- It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism.
Broad in its coverage edit
- It addresses the main aspects of the topic.
- It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail.
Neutral edit
- It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
Stable edit
- It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
Illustrated edit
- Media is tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
- Media is relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
Final Thoughts edit
I truly and deeply feel that this article meets all criteria and good article expectations, and deserves to be a good article.