Talk:Tim Tebow

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article has been selected as the WikiProject Homeschooling Collaboration of the Month for April 2008!
Please read the collaboration and assessment pages and help improve this article to a good article or even a featured article standard.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
football
College football Portal

Tim Tebow is part of WikiProject College football, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to college football on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Assessment Comments
This article is part of WikiProject Homeschooling, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of homeschooling-related topics. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to "featured" and "good article" standards, or visit the WikiProject page for more details. [View this template]
Portal
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.
WikiProject University of Florida This article is within the scope of WikiProject University of Florida. If you would like to help, you can edit this article or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. B
This article has been rated as a Mid priority article Mid
To-do list for Tim Tebow: edit · history · watch · refresh

Here are some tasks you can do:
    Good article Tim Tebow was one of the Everyday life good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
    Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on August 16, 2006. The result of the discussion was keep.
    Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on August 28, 2006. The result of the discussion was keep.

    Contents

    [edit] Birth Place

    There is a problem with this article. Was Tim Tebow born in the Philippines, as it says in the article, or in Uzbekistan, as it says in the information box?

    Resolved (Phillipines). Pepto gecko 19:58, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
    The article citing this says nothing about his birth place 72.85.158.75 (talk) 19:45, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
    Fixed Niasain (talk) 19:52, 12 January 2008 (UTC)


    [edit] edit war?

    There have been a bunch of edits going back and forth on this page with no accompanying discussion. The reasons for adding/deleting stuff should be posted here so that a consensus can be reached. Zeng8r 20:58, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

    Most of the edits going back and forth are because of vandalism and people cleaning it up. Tebow is not quite the most popular lad among fans of other football teams. WTStoffs 01:31, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

    I know a lot of people don't like Tebow but please don't vandalize. There hasn't been a lot but just because you don't like the person please don't vandalize there page. Hatmatbbat10 01:56, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

    Hey, can someone take down the Walking Freight Truck quote in the first paragraph? It just doesn't belong in an encyclopedia article about Tim. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.187.83.26 (talk) 02:48, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

    Done. There was no reason for that description to be in there, especially an unsourced quote. --WTStoffs 05:36, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

    [edit] His SAT score

    This source and some others cite his GPA as 3.5 (which is impressive) but an SAT score of 890 (which...isn't). I think this should be worked into the article as far as how he got drafted despite a low score. Mike H. I did "That's hot" first! 13:42, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

    Drafted? He is in college. The academic score of someone is pretty irrelevant unless there is some sort of scandal involved (e.g Vince Young's low wonderlick score). The article that his SAT score is taken from clearly says he got that score in 9th grade. It is pretty evident that the kid is not a dunce.
    I'm not sure how a homeschooled kid can get a 3.5 GPA, though. Rivals is not the best source of information sometimes. WTStoffs 19:05, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

    This source shows that Tebow qualified for college in his freshman year of high school with his SAT score. I feel as though, since there has been so much discussion about his intelligence, this would be a simple way to cool that argument.

    890 on the SAT is accurate per Scout.com. Not saying the kid is an idiot, he may have scored that in 9th grade and never bothered to take the test again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hi way30 (talk • contribs) 02:01, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

    [edit] All-time rushing TD record?

    I think he holds the record for most rushing TDs in one season for a quarterback. Doesn't he? It's a pretty major stat/record. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.190.29.150 (talk) 20:32, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

    Oh, it's the all-time SEC record for rushing TDs he broke. He has now had more rushing TDs as quarterback than emitt smith did when he was playing for Florida as a running back. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.190.29.150 (talk) 04:10, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

    That is not accurate. He has the most rushing touchdowns of a QB in the SEC. It is not in comparison to running backs, only other quarterbacks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.250.146.195 (talk) 12:50, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

    Yes, the Smith record was just a Gator record.

    He holds the SEC record for most rushing TDs (all positions). He holds (tied with Chance Harridge) the NCAA TDs in a season by a quarterback - 22.

    [edit] Neutrality

    I added the tag because upon first glance at the article, the neutrality is already unbalanced. First off, the introductory paragraph is one of the most biased I can say I've read. "Coach Meyer has described Tebow as the "sparkplug" of the Gator offense, providing a much needed jolt at just the right time during the games."(Just to clarify, Meyer's quote ends with sparkplug, the rest of that was written by someone else.) I realize this was a quote, but the article could do without it. Besides that, the preceding "jolt at just the right time" sentence is completely unnecessary. In the 2007 section, the following quote is listed: "While there were some questions about how he would perform as a full time passer, he opened the year with a bang". This is pretty one-sided itself and completely opinionated. Finally, there is not anything about a weakness, a downside, a bad game, or anything that isn't pro-Tebow. This article could probably use full cleanup, but for now, I would just advise people to work on neutrality. Saget53 21:25, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

    Is it possible that tebow doesn't have any drawbacks? Cause he doesn't. He's a complete football player and essentially a saint in real life. Just because the coach praises his QB doesn't give you the right to pronounce the wiki has troubles with neutrality. Prove it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.190.29.150 (talk) 06:59, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
    I did a pretty thorough cleaning of the article. It seems NPOV to me, though I will work on citing some of the statements that have citation notices next to them. WTStoffs (talk) 22:49, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
    Yes, you've done a pretty good job with the NPOV. To the article's defense, I do realize that it is very hard, particularly with SEC articles, to maintain NPOV considering the fact that the overzealous fanbases will get on and tweak it to make the player/coach/team into God-like status (per above unmarked post by the way). Saget53 (talk) 22:58, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
    I have a hunch that most of the God-like stuff from established users (as the page is thankfully semi-protected) is sock puppetry. For example, as a Dawg you should get a kick out of UFTebowharvin's edits and rants on the WLOCP page. Pure comedy gold. WTStoffs (talk) 23:19, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

    [edit] last paragraph of intro

    Should change to something like: A sophomore in 2007, he became the Gators' starting quarterback. While at quarterback he broke the conference record for most rushing touchdowns by a player at any position, as well the record for most total points accounted for by a single player He is the only player ever in college football to score at least 20 rushing and 20 passsing touchdowns in the same season. His performance has made him among the polled favorites for the 2007 Heisman trophy.[5] [6]

    --- as a side note, I'm not sure if "in division I" is required for 20 rushing/passing TD record. The season on-going stats in the body of the wiki needs updated as well; it still states he's at 19 TDs.66.190.29.150 (talk) 21:04, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

    I moved the 20-20 stat to his 2007 section. If every record was listed his opening paragraph would be massive. WTStoffs (talk) 21:33, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
    His major records -- conference and diviosn one all-time records should be in the intro entry. I don't even see it being debatable.
    I suppose it might be a big enough record, and it is sourced now... WTStoffs (talk) 21:41, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
    I re-added it after seeing the record mentioned on the top page of yahoo (not yahoo sports, but yahoo.com), and realized that this section of the talk page was to request the mention in the intro, not remove it from the intro. Mea culpa. WTStoffs (talk) 23:04, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

    [edit] Assessment

    I was wondering about the assessment of this article. shouldn't it be at least mid importance in college football, i mean he could win the Heisman. also is this article ready to go up to B class yet, if not what can we do to make it better? Hatmatbbat10 22:25, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

    I've requested a re-assessment since it has been a year since it was last scored. The article definitely isn't start class anymore. WTStoffs (talk) 17:50, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

    Anybody know what I should assess his importance for WikiProject University of Florida?


    As a Heisman winner, this should be mid-priority for college football, so I'd think it's at least mid-class for the UF project. I adjusted them both. Zeng8r (talk) 16:15, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

    [edit] Picture

    Somebody recently added a different photo for the info box and i clicked on the image and found there's no license given. So shouldn't the photo be removed until it gets an appropriate license? Hatmatbbat10 (talk) 01:08, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

    Maybe, I'll ask an admin. RC-0722 (talk) 01:37, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

    Fixed. --B (talk) 01:50, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

    [edit] Protection

    This article says it's semi-protected at the top, but ip addresses are editing how is that? Hatmatbbat10 (talk) 04:59, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

    I don't know, I'll ask an admin. Burner0718 (talk) 05:20, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

    I sure am glad semi-protection was removed from the article. I was getting bored with only 1 or 2 attempts at vandalism a week. WTStoffs (talk) 03:53, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

    [edit] Successful good article nomination

    I am glad to report that this article nomination for good article status has been promoted. This is how the article, as of June 12, 2008, compares against the six good article criteria:

    1. Well written?: Pass
    2. Factually accurate?: Pass
    3. Broad in coverage?: Pass
    4. Neutral point of view?: Pass but could use some work, there's not really anything about him doing anything wrong. It's like he's perfect, although he hasn't made many notable mistakes.
    5. Article stability? Pass
    6. Images?: Pass

    If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it to Good article reassessment. Thank you to all of the editors who worked hard to bring it to this status, and congratulations. Hatmatbbat10 (talk) 05:17, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

    [edit] Good Article Reassessment

    I'm sorry, but I do not feel that this article meets the GA requirements at this time. Many sections of the article, including specific facts, are completely uncited. "2006" is a strong example of many uncited facts and paragraphs, but there are others as well. Large sections of "Early life" and "2007" suffer from this as well. Smaller parts of "Heisman Trophy" and "Effect on homeschooling movement"There are many WP:MoS concerns, but the biggest is that "2006," and definitely "2007" read like borderline Proseline. "On this date he did this and this date he did that." It's not the definition of proseline, I admit, but whatever it is it breaks up the flow to the point of distraction and does not read well at all. There are more smaller concerns as well, but these are the ones that leading to me to list this article at good article reassessment. Cheers, CP 18:34, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

    I think it has enough references now, I added a few to the 2006 season. Hatmatbbat10 (talk) 19:43, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

    Unfortunately, the result of the discussion was still "delist". The discussion will be added to the GAR archives shortly. Geometry guy 19:21, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

    [edit] Good Article Nomination

    I've put this article back up for GA nomination because i think it now may meet the GA Criteria. Thanks Hatmatbbat10,a proud Wikipedian (Talk) 17:47, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

    [edit] Failed GA Nomination

    The article made some good improvements from the time before but it still lacks enough citations. I went through the article and added markings to show where citations are needed. I agree with previous editors remarks concerning there being too much chronology in the 2007 Season section. The part about the Heisman Trophy is also covered twice. I suggest that the information that is in this section be expanded, reduced, eliminated, or turned into a chronology chart as to diminish any choppiness on the account of dates. Also, I don't know why there isn't a chart for his stats. Many pages on athletes have athletic stat charts. This is still a really good article despite these concerns.User:calbear22 (talk) 00:01, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

    The improvements made to the article are looking great. Just something I didn't add to the review but might be helpful, make sure the article has no problems with let fact speak for themselves standard and Wikipedia:Words to avoid. The article looked pretty clean in these areas, but there was a few instances.User:calbear22 (talk) 07:16, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

    [edit] April 23 GA Nomination: Review

    GA review (see here for criteria)

    Good work so far. It's well-cited, and by all appearances does a good job of covering the subject. There are, however, a few places where the prose falls short of the MOS or is just a little NPOV.

    1. It is reasonably well written.
      a (prose): b (MoS):
      My main concern is that readers who aren't as familiar with American college football will have a hard time with this article. There are also a few terms that are wikilinked on the second reference or not at all: rush, pass, touchdown, pocket, underclassman, and a few others. I'd like to see a citation on the first sentence of the third paragraph in "Early Life," and many of the citations that do exist need to have publisher information and generally adhere to a consistent style. See 2008 Orange Bowl for an example of what I'm talking about. The section discussion Tebow's "shopping" for a high school team is also somewhat awkward; it talks about the high schools as if they're people, saying they didn't or did like to pass the ball and refers to them as "who" rather than "which." I'd suggest rephrasing those few sentences.
    2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
      a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
    3. It is broad in its coverage.
      a (major aspects): b (focused):
    4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
      Fair representation without bias:
      There are spots that have slightly NPOV language: "continued to impress," "Interestingly," "hard-nosed style," etc.
    5. It is stable.
      No edit wars etc.:
    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):
    7. Overall:
      Pass/Fail:
      Drop a comment on my talk page when you've made the changes, and I'd be happy to take another work. Good work so far; hopefully this GA review will stick!

    JKBrooks85 (talk) 10:08, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

    Failed due to none of the suggestions being made in more than two weeks and no contact from any involved editors. Please contact me if you do want to make a serious effort at getting this to GA status. JKBrooks85 (talk) 07:56, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

    [edit] This article needs semi-protection

    Temporary semi-protection was recently lifted. Today I see no fewer than 7 edits of vandalism by anonymous users. And this is during the offseason! WTStoffs (talk) 22:31, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

    Yeah, I agree. It's a never ending battle to keep this article clear of "jokes" and other vandalism. Envy is a sad emotion to see in action.... Zeng8r (talk) 00:06, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Jeez, it seems even the talk page could use semi-protection, tho I don't think that's possible. Zeng8r (talk) 14:31, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
    It is possible, but against policy to have both the article and its talk page protected at the same time. Zginder 2008-05-21T15:44Z (UTC)