Talk:Tai Streets

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleTai Streets 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.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
March 8, 2010Good article nomineeListed
Did You Know
A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on December 13, 2009.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that former National Football League wide receiver Tai Streets was named after former female figure skater Tai Babilonia?

Current state of the article[edit]

As it stands, I find a significant number of problems with the article. I have reverted the edits that I brought to the attention of User:TonyTheTiger which he then undid. As I said, I'm happy to discuss things and try and help make this a more suitable article for GA standards. I will sustain from editing the text while we discuss this here. In the meantime, let's leave things alone and discuss what the concerns are. Iamnothuman (talk) 03:42, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Tai Streets/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Iamnothuman (talk) 03:39, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am not the reviewer, but I think that this should be put on hold until the article is rewritten. As it stands, it is over-linked, over-sourced, contains non-enyclopedic information, seems to contain a good bit of bias, and does not use very good grammar. Still learning how this place works, so hopefully this is the "appropriate" action. Iamnothuman (talk) 03:39, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The article is well within the quality range for serious GA consideration after a GAC workout. This is what I have done several times in the recent past and I have about 50 Michigan GA credits now. You did not help the reader to learn about the guy by removing anything that you removed.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 07:18, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have seen your past edits and while I think you have made a number of good contributions, there are a lot of problems with this article. I cannot and will not speak to your other examples, but I'm pretty perterbed that you called me a vandal, got into an edit war with me, and have the audacity to report me when I came to you and asked for discussion and help. 180 citations on the article is excessive and unecessary. Further to the point, much of the content in it is superfulous and not particularly interesting. The wiki system even tells you that the length of the article is too much, yet you don't seem to care. Stop being so confrontational and try and work with people. Unless you change your attitude, you're not going to get very far with me. All that aside, you still have yet to properly address any of the concerns I laid out. Iamnothuman (talk) 08:31, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the review, split up by sections: (doing a bit at a time to make it easier on both ends)

High school[edit]

  • The first couple sentences start off a bit jarring. Granted, this is partially due to his early life info mainly being in the personal life section at the end of the article; it ends up being chronologically confusing. I think it would work better to move the pre high-school stuff up here and rename the section to early life.
  • "He was considered to be the best high schooll wide receiver in Illinois." You mention he was considered the best high school athlete in Illinois earlier so this seems unnecessary.
    • I am not sure it is redundant or unnecessary. The best athlete was a local journalist, while the best WR was from a high school sports national guru. I have tried to clarify this.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:19, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm guessing SICA East is the conference; what's the full name?
  • Did he get a scholarship for both football in basketball? The article implies this and it seems awfully unusual, so double-checking.
    • What part of the text are you contesting. The word scholarship is not even in the article and I can not find any text that implies what you are saying.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:31, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • "He was part of a Michigan Wolverines men's basketball incoming number-one ranked recruiting class with three McDonald's All-Americans: Robert Traylor, Albert White, and Louis Bullock.[48]" This makes it sound just like he was part of that incoming group. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 02:52, 7 March 2010 (UTC) Nevermind this issue, I figured it out after starting to read through the college section. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 03:07, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

College[edit]

  • I'm presuming Streets just played the one season of basketball. Any notes as to why he left? Probably to focus on football so I'm probably asking for info where none is needed here, but I thought I'd ask.
    • The article is pretty much as comprehensive as I could make it. He barely got any time the year he played. So imagine he focussed on the sport that he had the potential to become professional at. No sources though.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:59, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I made a couple tweaks, but otherwise there are no actual issues here.

Professional[edit]

I made some copyedits, but no issues save for one:

  • "The Lions signed wide receiver Kevin Johnson in April 2005." Right, and IIRC they drafted another wideout too. Anyway, it's an odd way to end the section; add a note that he wasn't signed by any team afterwords. If you can find a cite all the better, but if not leave the note anyway. Wizardman Operation Big Bear
    • I had looked for a ref saying he went unsigned, but did not find one. I have reworked the end of the paragraph in response to your comments.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:12, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Personal[edit]

No issues. Wizardman Operation Big Bear

Misc.[edit]

Anyway, other than the remaining profession issue, the article is quite good. Only thing I'd ask is before FAC if you want to go there, go through a peer review to get the prose fine-tuned. I found the prose to be average and not very compelling despite being interested in the subject, so someone not interested at all might find it difficult. Nonetheless, I'll put the article on hold and pass it when the last issue is fixed. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 00:47, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All my concerns are now addressed, so I'll pass the article as a GA. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 01:20, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Playing together nicely[edit]

Seems there is a little bit of an edit war between two users (who will no doubt see this). Start discussing your edits and ideas or not only may you be blocked for 3RR / Edit Warring, the article may also get fully protected which would halt a GAC for quite some time. Cheers   «l| Promethean ™|l»  (talk) 08:40, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Better solution, I just give up. The article reads like it was writted by a two year old and is full of useless clutter, non-encyclopedic content, bad grammar, and i don't know how many other things. I actually tried to talk to the guy and he just started badgering. Not going to argue about it anymore, let someone else worry about the drivel. Outtie Iamnothuman (talk) 08:57, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have reverted your edits because they mostly remove content from the WP:LEAD that help to summarize the article. Removing the content from the lead makes it impossible for the reader to understand the basic accomplishments of this guy without reading through the article. The infobox is extensive, but enables the reader to understand his accomplishments without reading extensive prose. Think about the reader who likes to read just the infobox and the LEAD.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:52, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality - January 2012[edit]

This article sounds like it was written by Tai Streets - has 180 cites for a player with minimum to no impact in the NFL (Jerry Rice has 25 cites), and is full of opinion statements like "he proved himself to be the only speed receiver with the ability to create big plays downfield, but he remained the fourth receiver." None of the linked cites say he was unjustly held back or should have been the top receiver on the team etc. Needs major work, it's a joke this is listed as an an exemplary article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Positivek0101 (talk • contribs) 05:09, 25 January 2012‎ (UTC)[reply]

The article is largely written by me. The fact that this article has 180 citations and Jerry Rice has only 25 citations is not a statement that Rice is written correctly and this is overblown. It is a statement that Rice has not been researched. Rice would take about 300 or 400 references to properly write. If he had any fans (only kidding Mr. GOAT), maybe he could get someone to write his page correctly. POV is not for cases where there are more references than expected. The citation adequately sources the prose, but not the tangential topic that you mentioned.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 07:54, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am going to remove the POV tag, if you have issue with the neutrality of this article and its quality rating, you may want to nominate it at WP:GAR.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 07:55, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This article is obviously written by Tai Streets (180 cites to Jerry Rice's 25). I updated this before and Tai Streets removed it without discussing the many points I brought up on non-neutral POV. You can see "Tony Tiger" (i.e. Tai Streets) edits here: Appears from the rest of the talk page he's done this before.
Tai Streets was the second pick of the SIXTH round of the NFL draft - compare his page to the FIRST wide receiver taken in that draft who had a career three times as long (Tory Holt). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torry_Holt — Preceding unsigned comment added by Positivek0101 (talk • contribs) 21:18, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You are not making much sense. I am not Tai Streets. See my talk page. Number of references is not evidence of POV.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 07:26, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
We have many such articles like this that stem from the devotion of Michigan fans. Tony has written several other articles that have been promoted to good article status. Just because the player never had success in the NFL does not mean that the article cannot be well written. Number of references does not mean POV, it means that someone has devoted their time to writing an article. SCS100 (talk) 08:54, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed the POV tag from this article. There's no remote POV issue here. I can attest that Tai Streets did not write this article, unless he has been masquerading for years as one of the most prolific and accomplished Wikipedia editors. Positivek0101, your critique above says something, perhaps, about the underdevelopment of the articles for Rice, Holt, et al. It does not, however, render much meaningful about this article. Perhaps, a case could be made that the Streets article is too long and overblown—I personally think it's rather good as is—but that is something different from a POV issue. If you'd like to work on the articles for Holt and Rice, that would be a great area for contribution. TonyTheTiger, SCS100, and I would be more than happy to support you in that effort. Jweiss11 (talk) 17:59, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
After reading the article, I believe it is thoroughly written. I only have a few problems with the references and certain sentences. Positivek0101 made a good point. The statement: "he proved himself to be the only speed receiver with the ability to create big plays downfield, but he remained the fourth receiver." sounds like it was written out of spite. It reads like a sports beat writer wrote that sentence. Further analysis of game tapes or something can prove me wrong but I trust GMs and coaches to get depth charts right. The 2000 49ers had Terrell Owens, though had some drops that season, is known as the guy for big plays downfield. The articles you references were opinions from Sports Beat Writers. Reading the referenced articles, the "ability to create big plays downfield" were the opinion of the sports writers. He did not get much playing time or looks (only 19 catches that season) to prove himself and only showed potential. Also, keep in mind, Terrell Owens was considered "immature" in the media so that could cause biased towards his abilities.— Preceding unsigned comment added by GeologicNW (talk • contribs) 23:47, 8 February 2012‎ (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to chime in so late but it really does look like it has too much information. His high school track career is featured in the lead? The amount of references is tough to look through and can't all be needed. There is a lot to be said for making something as concise as possible. This will also help to make it as encyclopedic as can be. Coralshin (talk) 02:45, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There is no policy on WP to be as concise as possible. The WP:LEAD summarizes the main body. If he had more pro accomplishments, the LEAD would be more weighted than it is.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:39, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Right, there is no official policy on it being concise. It is, however, stressed that consistency should be something to strive for. Sure, the lead adequately summarizes the information in the body...but that doesn't mean that the body has the right amount of information. I am also suggesting that there is too much detail involved, especially when compared to other pages that should be similar. Coralshin (talk) 07:26, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Your perspective seems to be that since I have thoroughly researched this subject and better players have not been thouroughly researched, content should be removed from this article so as not to make the other articles look bad. The content in this article represents a summary of WP:RS. Almost ever star pro player was an elite high school and college player. It is not my fault that their fans have not taken the time to document those details. You have problems with the inclusion of "In track, he was a state long jump champion as a junior and runner-up as a senior when he also helped his school's 4 x 400 metres relay team finish third in the state." in the LEAD. In terms of his life history, that is not random musings. Most star athletes have similar accomplishments. In many instances the LEADs are so packed with Professional details that this type of high school content is ignored. Streets was not the type of player were there is so much Pro content that high school can not be adequately summarized. Streets is one of many Chicago High School basketball stars who I have written about. He was also a three-sport star. If you want to get an understanding of how much high school content is out there start with Jabari Parker. Also see Juwan Howard. By early May, you will likely be able to see a robust high school section for Anthony Davis (basketball) who is my next bio project.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 07:41, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Here are some more Chicago high school hoopsters who have overblown amateur career sections Rob Pelinka, Kit Mueller and Quincy Miller. Here are some football players: Justin Boren and Stephen Schilling.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:08, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Your perspective seems to be that nobody has thoroughly researched Jerry Rice or other players? I think it's more reasonable to assume that editors do have various facts for players but don't need to put the intricate detail in each page. Something like him being tied for the team lead in receptions in a playoff game with 4 is really that important? I think it would be nice to have everything more accessible and simple.Coralshin (talk) 08:15, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please check the references. A lot of the newsbank references listed in the article lead to a "Headline information for this article could not be found." page. Examples are reference 2 and reference 4. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GeologicNW (talk • contribs) 23:47, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

IP edits[edit]

There is an IP that insists it is not relevant to the 4th wide receiver that the 3rd wide receiver has left the team or that a QB battle is not important to a wide receiver. I am reverting this until a registered user will give me some further explanation. This is the second time I have done this, but there is no response at WP:NFL yet so I am acting on my own.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:55, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Tai Streets. 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) 21:52, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Tai Streets. 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) 14:01, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Tai_Streets&oldid=1210569339"