Talk:LaDainian Tomlinson

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Adversity[edit]

LaDainian Tomlinson was born to Loreane Tomlinson and Oliver Tomlinson in Rosebud, Texas. His parents separated when he was very young, leaving his mother to raise he and his two siblings. They moved around alot between Marlin and Waco Texas. His mother worked hard as a nurse to provide and care for the family

Records[edit]

Under "Records" someone wrote: "On November 26, 2006, in a Chargers' comeback win over the Oakland Raiders, LaDainian Tomlinson broke his own record for most touchdowns scored in a five game span (15) with 16 TDs (14 rushing, 2 receiving). He also became the 7th player in NFL history to pass, rush, and receive for a touchdown in the same game. In his career, he has thrown for 6 touchdowns without an interception, and his QB rating is in the low 150's (a 'perfect' rating being 158.3). "

The first sentence is good and belongs under Records. The second sentence is false, on 11/26/06, he rushed for 2 TDs and passed (to Antonio Gates) for 1 TD; he didn't receive a touchdown in that game (it was a previous game in which he did all 3). And this does not belong under Records, but under Trivia. The 3rd sentence also belongs under trivia. I'll make those changes, please feel free to comment if you object.


Under the "Records" section someone wrote "Tomlinson has lead the league in rushing attempts every year of his career." This is not true. His league rank in rushing attempts in each of his first 4 seasons is:

2001 - Rank 3rd.

2002 - Rank 2nd.

2003 - Ranks not even in top 10 (despite being 3rd highest rushing yards in NFL that year).

2004 - Rank 6th.

2005 - Rank 5th.

In fact, LT has NEVER lead the league in rush attempts in a season. Your implication that he will burn out just like Eric Dickerson or Earl Campbell is not true. In fact, Marty Schottenheimer has LT on a pitch count to avoid just that. Therefore, I am removing the statement above.

I believe LT has led the league in "touches" per season, but I have not been able to find a site where I can easily look up this statistic.

He is the best running back of all time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ChargersFan2184 (talk • contribs) 00:57, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can anyone add a description of LT's signature move after a touchdown, when he puts his left hand behind his head and flips the football out of his outstretched right hand?


why do we have to criticize a short man but short people make the best impact in almost every sport.with emmitt smith paving the way for short RB "LT" followed after.

New Post. Is there any reason for the meter equivalents to be written alongside the yd-markings in records? Is there some standard I'm missing out on? Because as much as I love the metric system, football milestones are measured in yards, not meters.

Also, perhaps years should accompany the record-setting? The years are there for the broken records, but not LT's. The freddinator (talk) 05:00, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Elite?[edit]

I think that Tomlinson has answered any questions about his "elite" status. The man will be the fastest player to reach 100 touchdowns and has scored 15 TDs over the last 3 games. Any debate over his ability at this point is simply irrelevant.

Sourcing[edit]

It needs a better source like an external link or at least the magazine issue and the page number, please see WP:CITE. Anyways one scout that says that he is declining really doesn't mean anything. Jaranda wat's sup 04:15, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is not one scout. It is several scouts.--TheTruth2 06:34, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It still needs a more valid source per WP:CITE like an external link or the magazine issue and page number. Jaranda wat's sup 18:58, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

--TheTruth2 19:24, 31 July 2006 (UTC)it does.[reply]

It only has the magazine, it needs the issue and the page number, otherwise it's not

sourced correctly, and a external link is easy to find on this. Jaranda wat's sup 19:29, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]


There is no external link. I have listed the magazine and issue as well as the page number. As was reported in Pro Football weekly 2006 page 101 preview--TheTruth2 19:39, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"YPC" Statistic Under 60%?[edit]

Tomlinson has been held to less than 4 YPC in 45 51 his 89 regular season games: that equals 57.3%. 57.3% is less than 60%, and therefore the statistic listed under the facts section is incorrect.

It is 51 out of 89 It is 57.3 01 11 out of 16 02 10 out of 16 03 7 out of 16 04 10 out of 15 05 9 out of 16 06 4 out of 11

06: 4 out of 8 now. So 51 out of 88 is 58%. As a sign of willingness to end this editing conflict over maintaining factual accuracy I will not change the stat 60%. I have added a line that I hope will stop you and others from continually reverting this edit back and forth and also maintain neutrality (which I find ridiculous, since this is not a controversial figure). I removed your line about receiving average. Rotoworld is not a credited sports statistic site such a espn.com, cbssportsline.com, pro-football-reference.com or nfl.com. Additionally, I could find nothing about the topic you allege rotoworld discusses at the actual site. The stat is petty, unnecessary and overtly negative. It is out of place and encourage others to change it. Please leave it as is and I will leave your 60% YPC as it is, unless of course it falls under 50%. This is my attempt at a compromise. I sincerely hope you accept it.

For what its worth, I was the one who added the Rotoworld link, as it provided verifiability for a certain other editor who was convinced that 7.1 yards per catch was LOW for an NFL RB. Rototimes.com uses that same stats as NFL.COM, Associated Press, and every other sport media outlet, I only chose Rototimes because their site allows for easy filtering of statistics. The Footballoutsiders.com link was what another editor added to support one of his edits. In any case, it all falls under OR and could easily be removed as far as I'm concerned.---Jackel 14:42, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]


You obviously don't understand football or the running back position if you think LT's 7.1 YPC is worth mentioning - I think someone who is an expert on this should come in and clear this up if you are going to be so adamant about it.

The stat you keep adding to the trivia section about LT's YPC being under 4 is irrelevant. LT is simply the best back in the league and a duel threat. The emphasis should be on total yards from scrimage rather than something like YPC.


I removed the whole line with "Tomlinson has averaged more than 4 YPC in his career and less than 4 YPC in nearly 60% of his games." This contradicts itself and I don't know whether the article speaks of yards per catch or yards per carry; nor do I care enough to try and sort it out myself. JaderVason 20:25, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I updated the "YPC" statistic through the Oakland game this year, and added a comparison to Emmitt Smith for the same statistic. Let me know what you think. 12/2/06.

Stop trying to water down this man's accomplishments with overtly negative statistics that you keep adding about his rushing and reciving numbers.

  • Well, I think we can all congratulate TheTruth2 on attempting to source his information, albeit at the eighth or ninth time of asking. The trouble is that the sources and his use of statistics are invalid, or so badly misrepresented here as to be invalid. The first link, to footballoutsiders.com, leads to a page with fifteen to twenty stories, none of which have Tomlinson in the headline.

The second article leads to a statistical study which presents only Tomlinson's statistics for the 2002 season, and applies only to running backs who lead their team in both rushes and receptions. Since Tomlinson does not lead his team in receptions this year (2006: 53 receptions to Antonio Gates' 65 through 15 weeks); did not lead his team in receptions last year (2005: 51 receptions to Gates' 89); nor the year before that (2004: 53 receptions to Gates' 81), the statistic as presented here is at best misleading, and at worst entirely irrelevant.

(Source: San Diego Chargers Team Statistics)

There is still no citation for the statistic that Tomlinson has rushed for less than 4 yards per carry in 55% of his starts, and as such it should be removed. Even if true, it's totally out of context; it neglects to mention that Tomlinson played on some pretty bad Chargers teams early in his career. On the outstanding 2006 Chargers team, Tomlinson has averaged more than 4 yards per carry in 9 of 15 games thus far this season. (Ladainian Tomlinson's Game Log) Furthermore, without any comparison to similar statistics for other running backs, such a stat provides no useful metric for evaluating Tomlinson's quality or effectiveness. 71.135.103.140 00:40, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A few weeks back, I tried to add a comparison to another relevant player (Emmitt Smith). TheTruth2 kept deleting it, because he is insistent on stating his YPC statistic in only the way he wants to state it, with no comparison. So I will add it again, let's see how long it lasts on the main page. I would agree with removing altogether this ridiculous statistic of "number of games with yards per carry less than 4.0." However, TheTruth2 seems insistent upon keeping this statistic in the Wiki article, so let us at least be accurate about it. The relevant statistic is as follows:
Number of games with Yards per Carry (YPC) less than 4.0:
LaDainian Tomlinson = 51 out of 93 = 54.8%
Emmitt Smith = 81 out of 149 = 54.4%
Or putting it another way:
Number of games with Yards per Carry (YPC) MORE than 4.0:
LaDainian Tomlinson = 42 out of 93 = 45.2%
Emmitt Smith = 68 out of 149 = 45.6%
--Chargerfan411 05:23, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure why that statistic would ever be relevant to an article. As I recall, 4.0 yards/carry is commonly percieved as a good benchmark for running backs. However, that's as a game or season average. All running backs have good games and bad games, and yards per carry is obviously a flawed way to look at running back performance. (Obvious example? A 1 yard touchdown run will lower a running back's yards per carry, but it's as succesful as a play could possibly be.)
Therefore, I just don't see that "percentage of games over 4 yards per carry" as being an at all relevant statistic. American football lends itself well to statistical analysis, and there are several advanced statistics which can be used to analyze a player's performance (DVOA and DPAR spring immediately to mind.) That said, there's no reason to just put every stat that you can think of in an article- it's, at least in my mind, a biography and guide to a player's career, not a page devoted to statistical analysis of their play. Barnas 20:11, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The Statistic is very irrelevant and doesn't improve the article at all. It's not verifiable at all with those links. Looking at the stat, it doesn't make much sense, and when you do make sense of it, it seems very pointless. The stat reads point of view as if he's a "bad" pass catching running back. Even if he didn't have that many games where his yard per catch is high, doesn't mean he's a bad pass catching running back. If he only had one catch in those games for a yard (screen), then it counts as a game where he didn't catch a pass. Very misleading and irrelevant. Do not include this.++aviper2k7++ 21:54, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2006 season[edit]

under LT's NFL career and accomplishments, this sentence seems out of place and does not belong in an encyclopedic entry: "Also as of December 10, Tomlinson has a lot of all-purpose (combined rushing, receiving, and passing) yards and 34 touchdowns (29 rushing, 3 receiving, and 2 passing)".

who cares if he has a lot??? You can mention how he only needs a few more points to take the record of most points by an NFL player in a single season, but not this junk of a sentence. 14:10, 12 December 2006 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 155.247.166.29 (talk) 19:10, 12 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

thats a terrible picture, needs to be changed

Stats[edit]

To the user that removed his stats; why did the stats need to be removed? You linked to WP:NOT which had nothing to do with his stats. Not mentioning his stats because it's listed on a different website is not a legitimate reason, you can say that about anything on this page. So his records shouldn't be listed either because they're linked to in the external links? This is puzzling and his stats add much to the article. ++aviper2k7++ 04:08, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is Wikipedia really website about statistics or general information. Would one really turn to an internet encyclopedia to find up to date statistics about an LT? The Last time I checked, there [[www.ESPN.com ESPN.com], [[NFL.com NFL], Pro-Football-Reference and database football devoted their content to statistics, while Wikipedia offers more encyclopedic approaches to these subjects. Although statistics are useful, it's near pointless as there are specific websites which offer the information. Additionally, removing the section would save page size, editing time, and the occasional stat correction errors [1]. However, if you feel the statistics and records are a must, it wouldn't hurt to make a page devoted to LT's many records, stats, accomplishments, milestones ect - as per Micheal Jordan. --ShadowJester07 05:08, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A statistic is general information. The Tomlinson article is ranked fourth when you google his name. Someone who is a bit familiar with Wikipedia may prefer that link and read his biography. Part of his career has to do with statistics. He has broken a number of records this year and it is important to include his stats on the year. You could make the statement about any article with any stat then. If it's included in an external link, why include it on encyclopedia? Just because it's listed in an external link, doesn't make it wrong to add the same information. Heck, every article on Wikipedia should have the same information in an external link. And reducing article size is not a valid argument because it takes up a mere six lines. In closing, the stats are in relation to his career in the NFL and are encyclopedic because it adds context and needed information to the article.++aviper2k7++ 05:26, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Statistics are general information? Can you even prove that people come to Wikipedia to tally up their fantasy leagues points over the three other Google results, of whom the editors of this article “borrow” their information from? Or that people actually even look at the Statistics? For that matter, how exactly do numbers contribute to an article when someone who may not know about football reads this article, and may not understand what are the abbreviations, or norms/standards of the NFL (somewhat relating to making WP accessible to Wikipedia:Make technical articles accessible, Wikipedia:Technical terms and definitions. At least add some substance to explain it.
Compared to actual text, statistical jargon is seemingly trivial. Numbers alone hardly offer any help to someone who may not know a lot about football, but wants to learn about LT or football Icons. Does it belongs on an encyclopedia? Encarta’s articles for Walter Payton, Michael Jordan, Peyton Manning omit standalone statistics, but instead splice use them as leverage to explain or elaborate on a specific point. --ShadowJester07 15:10, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Change Picture?[edit]

Could we put up a new picture? The current one is a picture of a scoreboard with his picture on it, and it seems we can do better. -anonymous6494 22:15, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's the only free one we have.++aviper2k7++ 22:29, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Technically, you could add a picture of LT breaking a record or reaching a milestone under Fair Use claims, but it cannot be used as a profile pic, --  ShadowJester07  ►Talk  22:34, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Don't know that it'd contribute majorly to the article though.++aviper2k7++ 22:55, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Death of LaDanian's father[edit]

I just now added an article about LaDanian's father passing today. Very sad, R.I.P. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by NCBoi24 (talk • contribs) 01:37, 24 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Abbreviation, Nickname[edit]

Tomlinson, frequently called "LT"

He has also been referenced by "LDT". I would propose changing the main page to LDT instead of LT. LDT makes more sense as a nickname because 1) D is capitalized in his first name and 2) LT has already been used as a nickname for another NFL player. (See hall of famer Lawrence Taylor.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.0.65.158 (talk) 19:45, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're going to need a RS for the LDT thing. If it stands up, then you will have to mention both since LT is more commonly known. infact, when you do a Google test for "LT", you get Tomlinson's NFL page as the first result. when you search "LDT", you get some random Wikipedia page. --ShadowJester07 ► Talk 21:48, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
LDT? WTF? You've got to be kidding. No one that I know of in San Diego (or anywhere else) calls him this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.183.177.184 (talk) 12:35, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism[edit]

ok....i know we can all be a little immature here, but there is no need to come on to a page of a player and boost your team spirit by writing false and offensive comments. please set all personal beliefs aside when editing pages of teams and players as wikipedia will be a neutral source of information. Viperbui 08:50, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Visor[edit]

I'm not a Chargers fan, so I don't feel like spending the time to do the research, but someone might want to add a note about Tomlinson's visor, seeing as it's definitely a rarity in the NFL (I remember reading that he needed special permission to wear it). Samer (talk) 17:12, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how to edit the page since its semi locked... but The visor is because he's sensitive to the stadium lights and gets migraines. He was required to provide a Dr.'s prescription and special permission from the NFL. User:thrice681

I was wondering about this. Are there any encyclopedic sources for this info, so it can be added to the article? Dave (talk) 22:12, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
LT wears the visor for two reasons: He suffers from migraines, and it shields his eyes from defenders. Now Darren Sproles is doing the same thing :) RJSampson (talk) 01:47, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

LT's Wife[edit]

In the "personal" section, an anonymous editor continues to revert LaTorsha's -- ie Tomlinson's wife's -- last name to "Tomlinson." When he met his future wife, her name was Oakley, and that's the correct name to use in this particular instance. I'd like to ask those anonymous editor(s) to cease reverting to her married name. RJSampson (talk) 04:53, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Editor needed[edit]

The grammar in many, many places throughout this article is mangled, sometimes making the meaning nonsensical or unclear.

Also, Lawrence Taylor was a "dirty player" but has since changed his ways? What the heck does that mean? He's no longer a dirty player? He's not even playing. Are you suggesting he was unscrupulous off the field? Unsubstantiated and unclear.

The final paragraph section sounds too much like a blow-by-blow account of the 2008 season. This is an article about Tomlinson, not what the team's record is at midpoint through the season, etc. If this much were written about each of Tomlinon's playing years, the article would be far too long.

Also, it's PhiLip Rivers, not PhiLLip Rivers.

Finally, pay attention to tense. If you write future-dependent sentences like this: "Tomlinson did not participate in the Chargers' offseason program in 2008 due to the injury, but is expected to be ready in time for the regular season." ... well, this sentence no longer makes sense, does it? We're already far into the season, but according to this, LT is expected to be ready for it. So this makes the entire section seem out of date. So unless the person who writes this stuff is going to keep coming back and fixing whatever is "expected" to reflect whatever "happened," it's generally safer to write about things in the established past. Also, there's quite a bit of editorializing going on here. "LT is expected to be ready for it." Expected by whom? Even though we're probably all LT fans, this kind of commentary and sportsy tone belongs on Scott & BR or a chatroom or blog, not a Wikipedia article.

OK, I'll take care of this page. My relationship with LT goes way beyond the field of play. Just give me a few days to make sure it's in good order :)

RJSampson (talk) 01:48, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

receiving stats[edit]

LT is an all around back who was not only good with rushing and pass-blocking, but a decent 2nd-3rd option receiver as well. Someone should add his reception statistics.75.92.47.248 (talk) 05:01, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Anime / Manga Reference?? (Eyeshield 21)[edit]

So I've been watching / reading Eyeshield 21, a Japanese Anime and Manga lately. Looking for references that pin him as the inspiration for the main character in the Anime. There aren't many similarities but it seems like the few that there are point to some form of inspiration. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.131.123.22 (talk) 09:08, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tomlinson listed on NFL Top 100.[edit]

LaDainian Tomlinson was ranked #61 on the NFL Channel's The Top 100 Greatest Players.(2010).Cjstanonis (talk) 23:33, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How to pronounce LaDainian[edit]

How to pronounce LaDainian ? --Tiyoringo (talk) 19:45, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on LaDainian Tomlinson. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 18:19, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retired number[edit]

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_National_Football_League#Are_numbers_retired_by_the_current_team.2C_or_by_the_team_they_played_for.3F about whether Tomlinson's number should be listed in the infobox as retired by SD or LA.—Bagumba (talk) 16:48, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion is archived at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_National_Football_League/Archive_15#Are_numbers_retired_by_the_current_team,_or_by_the_team_they_played_for?.—Bagumba (talk) 07:29, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on LaDainian Tomlinson. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:53, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:LaDainian Tomlinson/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: NSNW (talk · contribs) 18:38, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]


I'll try and get to this as soon as possible; I have some other things I need to do personally but this should be done in 1-2 weeks. NSNW (talk) 18:38, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@NSNW:, Just checking on this as it's been four weeks. Harper J. Cole (talk) 23:24, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies, I was completely distracted by other things currently in my life. I'll get to work on it tomorrow. NSNW (talk) 01:30, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it well written?
    A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
    B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
  2. Is it verifiable with no original research?
    A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
    B. All in-line 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—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:
    C. It contains no original research:
    D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
    B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
  4. Is it neutral?
    It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
  5. Is it stable?
    It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
  6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
    A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:
    B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:

Status query[edit]

NSNW, Harper J. Cole, where does this review stand? It's been over a month since the most recent post to this page, and the review has been open for four and a half months. Is there any chance it can get moving soon? BlueMoonset (talk) 19:50, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

BlueMoonset, I think NSNW has been less active lately. I stand ready to make changes as needed. Harper J. Cole (talk) 20:07, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@BlueMoonset, I've been taking a break from Wikipedia for a little while, mainly because of schoolwork and burnout tbh, and I completely forgot about this nomination. Now that it's break I can focus on it. Give me a few days and there will be more progress. NSNW (talk) 14:18, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References[edit]

  • 9: How is this source reliable?
  • 59: Same here.
  • 60: Again, explain how this is reliable.
  • 253, 354, 355, 395, 445: This an official team page, I would rather have a more independent source. Not necessarily needed for GA standards but would be much preferred.
  • 315: I can't exactly tell what this source is, looks to be a sub-section of USA Today based on it's style, but would like further explanation on how reliable it is.
  • 328: This source doesn't look reliable at a first glance.
  • 439: This source also doesn't look reliable.
  • 451: Had to click this link to see where it came from, it's reliable but reformat the citation to include the article name, who wrote it, and the name of the source itself.

Besides those all of the other sources look GA worthy. NSNW (talk) 21:54, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

9 I couldn't find a more reliable citation, so I've deleted this.
59, 60 This information doesn't seem readily available, and some of the numbers I found contradict each other. Deleted as a more reliable citation can't be found.
253, 395, 445 Couldn't find an alternative, but they seem worth keeping
354 Deleted as no alternative found, and yards from scrimmage are a less notable stat than rushing yards
355 Changed to two different sources
315 Changed to different source
328 Changed to different source
439 Changed to different source
451 Amended Harper J. Cole (talk) 23:00, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment from BeanieFan11: about "nflcombineresults" and "draftscout" (59 and 60), although I can't recall them being discussed, they seem to be treated as reliable as they're each cited on over 500 articles and one of them on over 2,000. BeanieFan11 (talk) 00:06, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've temporarily restored the measurables box; I'll start a thread at the NFL project and see what people think about the sources, which appear to contradict each other. Harper J. Cole (talk) 20:52, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ok then. The sources are good for now. Unless consensus occurs that those sources are unreliable I'll say keep them in. NSNW (talk) 21:29, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Prose[edit]

Initial Findings:

Early life[edit]

  • "Tomlinson did not see his father very often afterwards"; change it to 'afterward'.
  • "Tomlinson was able to meet Smith while attending a camp run by Dallas Cowboys' tight end Jay Novacek."; Grammatically it's correct, but the generally the way these sentences are written in football Wikipedia articles is to write it as 'Dallas Cowboys tight end' instead of 'Cowboys.

College career[edit]

  • "Prior to Tomlinson's arrival,"; change to 'Before Tomlinson's arrival'.
  • "He was their single-game, single-season and career record holder in both rushing touchdowns and rushing yards"; I prefer the Oxford comma and I don't know how many times you did or didn't use it but for now change this to 'single-game, single-season, and career record holder'.

2002 NFL season[edit]

  • "Tomlinson tied or broke numerous franchise records during the course of the season"; 'the course of' is redundant, remove it.
  • "San Diego were 8–4 after beating the Broncos"; 'was' to 'were'.
  • "He again led the league in touches with 451, which proved to be a career high"; add a hyphen to make it 'career-high'.

2003 NFL season[edit]

  • "Tomlinson finished with 1,645 rushing yards, third most in the league. He averaged 5.3 yards per carry, sixth-highest among backs with 100-plus carries; this would be the best average of his career."; hyphenate 'third most' and add 'the' before sixth-highest.

More to come later tomorrow. NSNW (talk) 03:23, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've amended these now. Harper J. Cole (talk) 14:54, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Continuing:

2004 NFL season[edit]

  • "On August 14, Tomlinson signed an eight-year contract worth $60 million dollars, with $21 million guaranteed."; the MOS states that it should be '$60 million', the 'dollars' is redundant.
  • "Tomlinson's individual yardage numbers were down from the previous season,"; 'individual' is redundant.
  • "and he had barely half as many reception with 53."; 'receptions' should be plural.
  • "During the sudden-death overtime period San Diego gained a first down at the New York 22"; add a comma after 'period'. NSNW (talk) 22:14, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2006 NFL season[edit]

  • "The Chargers began their regular season with a 27–0 win at Oakland, Tomlinson rushing 31 times for 131 yards and a touchdown."; should be 'with Tomlinson rushing 31 times'.
  • "A fumble recovery by Shawne Merriman soon afterwards gave San Diego the ball on the Denver 7."; change it to 'afterward', and specify '7' as 'Denver's seven-yard line'.
  • "that was his 28th rushing touchdowns of the season"; change it to 'touchdown'.
  • "Tomlinson's personal good form continued,"; 'personal' is redundant, remove it.

2008 NFL season[edit]

  • "Tomlinson rushed five times for 25 rushing yards and a trushing ouchdown before his groin injury forced him out of the game"; I think you mixed up a t here, 'rushing touchdown'.
  • "His 344 touches, 1,536 scrimmage yards and 12 total touchdowns also represented a clear drop from the previous season."; Oxford comma, add one after 'scrimmage yards'. NSNW (talk) 22:30, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Now covered up to this point. Harper J. Cole (talk) 23:20, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2010 NFL season[edit]

  • "Tomlinson stayed injury-free, missing only the regular season finale, when he was rested with the Jets assured of a wildcard appearance in the playoffs."; remove the comma after 'finale'. NSNW (talk) 23:05, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2011 NFL season[edit]

  • "Greene, now the main running back, had over 1,000 yards, but the Jets rushing attack were ranked only 22nd in the league, while their offense as a whole were 25th. Tomlinson's new pass-catching role yielded 42 catches for 449 receiving yards and two receiving touchdowns; he averaged 10.7 yards per reception, a career high."; the two 'were's' should be changed to 'was', and add a hyphen to make it 'career-high'.

Legacy and playing style[edit]

  • "He also rushed for 22 touchdowns, caught four and threw another three"; Oxford comma after 'four'.
  • "In goal line situations"; hyphenate 'goal line'.
  • "An elusive runner in the open field who would use stiff-arms to break tackles"; remove the hyphen in 'stiff-arms'.
  • "When Tomlinson's number was retired in 2015, a trio of analysts on NFL.com placed him 3rd, 7th and 8th respectively on their lists of top running backs in the Super Bowl era."; Oxford comma after '7th'.
  • "In 2021, statistical site Pro-Football-Reference.com ranked him as the fifth-best running back in NFL history."; change it to 'the statistical site'.

Personal life[edit]

  • "Tomlinson has his own charitable foundation called Tomlinson's Touching Lives Foundation."; change it to 'Tomlinson has a charitable foundation'.

That's pretty much all I've got. Once these are corrected this is a passing review. NSNW (talk) 00:58, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

All amended now. Harper J. Cole (talk) 01:27, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Good work! It took a while but we finally got this nomination to pass. Now I can focus on other things. NSNW (talk) 02:36, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know nomination[edit]

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Bruxton (talk) 21:56, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(
)

Improved to Good Article status by Harper J. Cole (talk). Nominated by Onegreatjoke (talk) at 22:06, 4 February 2023 (UTC). Note: As of October 2022, all changes made to promoted hooks will be logged by a bot. The log for this nomination can be found at Template talk:Did you know nominations/LaDainian Tomlinson, so please watch a successfully closed nomination until the hook appears on the Main Page.[reply]

  • @Onegreatjoke: A new enough GA. QPQ present. No copyvio issues (Pro Football Hall of Fame is for unavoidable formulations and titles like "AFC Offensive Player of the Week"). I don't think this hook came out quite as well as I'd have liked, at least in wording. Maybe something like an ALT0a for this same hook fact (I've also added the wording necessary for this): Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 06:27, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's a fine enough hook for me. Onegreatjoke (talk) 18:13, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • This should be ready now. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 00:56, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]


Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:LaDainian_Tomlinson&oldid=1210736103"