Talk:Noah Syndergaard/GA1

GA Review
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
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
Passes all immediate failure criteria, making it further reviewable.

Criteria
I took all of the criteria listed from Good article criteria.

Well Written

 * 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

 * 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

 * It addresses the main aspects of the topic.
 * It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail.

Neutral

 * It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.

Stable

 * It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.

Illustrated

 * 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
I truly and deeply feel that this article meets all criteria and good article expectations, and deserves to be a good article.