Talk:Phil Simms

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former good articlePhil Simms was one of the Sports and recreation 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.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
May 9, 2024Good article nomineeListed
December 15, 2008Good article reassessmentKept
May 13, 2023Good article reassessmentDelisted
Current status: Delisted good article

Hall of Fame[edit]

What are the prevailing reasons on why Phil Simms has not been inducted into the Pro Football Hall of Fame? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Asherkobin (talk • contribs) 23:46, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Fine person[edit]

Phil Simms is as fine a person as you will ever meet..... Ron Henke —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.1.116.225 (talk • contribs)

Revision[edit]

I think this cleans up the article a bit. It still has a lot of NPOV issues, but at least it is better formatted. It would be appreciated if someone could come forth with more sources so that it adheres to Wikipedia guidelines. Thanks and comments/advice appreciated. 70.21.216.202 22:18, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This article has way too many sections, this really needs to be addressed. Quadzilla99 09:11, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The sections should be fine now I reduced them in number, I'm going to expand them with sourced info. If they get long I'll break the article up into more sections. Quadzilla99 08:13, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Broadcasting career[edit]

I removed this, as it's OR:

"Simms is known for his warm, conversational broadcasting style (as well as his tendency to say "eem" in place of "him" in his Kentucky accent), which has endeared him to many football fans who tune in every Sunday. However many football fans dislike his aggressive speaking style where he seems to be moderately yelling during analysis. Despite this Simms is respected and admired in the broadcasting industry."

Feel free to re-add it with sources. Quadzilla99 08:10, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Referencing style[edit]

I'm going to convert the referencing to a manual format, if anyone disagrees please let me know. I'll wait a while before doing so to see what if someone objects. Quadzilla99 08:14, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If not let me know and I'll convert the refs I added to CITET format and be on my way. Quadzilla99 08:16, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'll give it a few more days. Quadzilla99 21:35, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Okay I'm going ahead with it. Quadzilla99 05:16, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Major work done[edit]

Okay, I re-formatted the refs, added a stats table, expanded the article and nominated it for GA, which passed. Looks pretty good. Quadzilla99 10:35, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is great. Does anyone have an image of Mr. Simms to add? The article seems incomplete without one. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 14:38, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hopefully we'll have one in a day or two. I'm an active editor over at Wikimedia Commons and a photographer that was nice enough to share the photo now in use on Joe Montana, has one of Simms. I've asked him to change the license and I assume he'll say yes. Quadzilla99 14:40, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify I asked him if he would mind sharing the Montana pic and he didn't mind, so I don't see why he wouldn't share the Simms pic. Quadzilla99 14:42, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Politics[edit]

I removed this info in lieu of a source:

"Prior to the 2006 election campaign, some bloggers suggested that Simms seek the Republican nomination for U.S. Senator from New Jersey, comparing his appeal to former New Jersey Senator Bill Bradley. The entry of Thomas Kean, Jr. to the 2006 senate race ended this speculation." Quadzilla99 06:34, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

A review has been requested for this article regarding the passing of the GA nomination due to the following concerns:

Lead[edit]

Early life and rookie season[edit]

  • "While an elementary school student his family moved and Simms grew up in Louisville, later starting his NFL career when drafted out of Morehead State University, in the first round of the 1979 NFL Draft, by the New York Giants." - Would read better if broken into two sentences.
    • done.
  • "... planned to draft Phil in the 3rd round." "3rd" → "third".
    • done.
  • 1979 NFL Draft is wikilinked twice, one sentence after the other. It should only be wikified in the first appearance (for this section). This is per WP:MOS#Wikilinking.
    • I don't see this, it's linked in the lead and the first section, I unlinked it in the first section
  • "...his selection was booed loudly by Giants fans, something he would get used to in his early Giant years." - I googled this and didn't find anything, not to say I didn't just keyed in the wrong keywords. But it currently appears to be OR. Reference 4 may verify it, but without a subscription, I can't read it.
    • I removed the last half of the sentence and sourced it, I used a readable source.
  • "He led the team to a 6–4 record as a starter, throwing for 1,743 yards and 13 touchdown passes and was named to the NFL All Rookie Team." - Shouldn't this be referenced?

Early career[edit]

  • Numbers under 11 should be spelled out per MOS. "9 interceptions" → "nine interceptions".
    • See below.
  • References some statements but not others. For example, there is a reference for his shoulder injury but not for his knee injury which, according to the article, prevented him for playing the entire 1982 season.
    • Done.
  • Also, "...playing the entire 1982 season. After the 1982 season..." would read better if it were rewritten to "... playing the entire 1982 season. The following season, ..."
    • Done.
  • "One of Parcells first decisions as coach was to replace Simms as the team's starting quarterback with Brunner." Source?
    • done.
  • Third paragraph, "3 TDs" → "three TDs".
    • See below.
  • Stand-alone years are randomly wikilinked. I see now that NFL season is in the link, just not shown in the article.
    • I unlinked those anyway I've never been a fan of that. Quadzilla99 10:21, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Super Bowl XXI[edit]

  • Super Bowl XXI need only be wikilinked once under the heading of the same.
    • Done.
  • "...2 dropped passes..." - "2" → "two".
    • See below.
  • "...he threw 3 touchdown passes..." - "3" → "three".
    • See below.
  • "Two of the most famous plays from the game were..." - If they're so famous, why are there no sources?
    • Done.
  • "(Disney produces two versions of each TV commercial.)" - Is that really relevant to this article?

Later career[edit]

  • "9 touchdowns, and 9 interceptions." → "Nine touchdowns, and nine interceptions."
  • "2nd highest" → "second highest".
  • "Parcells resigned and was replaced..." - Reference.
    • Done.
  • "7 interceptions" → "seven interceptions"
  • "6 touchdowns" → "six touchdowns"

Life off the field[edit]

  • "Simms then motioned for Taylor to run a longer pattern and after 30–40 yards threw him the pass." - Commas.
    • Done.
  • "more than 5 years" → "more than five years"
    • Done.
  • The remainder is unreferenced.

Passing statistics[edit]

Considering this table is here, it seems redundant and unnecessary to clutter the article with these same statistics.

  • Comment I don't see how it clutters the article, also it's standard practice. Quadzilla99 10:01, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notes[edit]

21 has a format error.

Conclusion[edit]

I feel that this is a well-written article, but that it was not adequately reviewed. If it had been, it would have been put on hold until issues were resolved. Perhaps my reviews are overly thorough compared the the reviewer of this article, but I feel that improving articles to GA status improves Wikipedia, thus all reviews should be thorough. I hope you find this review helpful. Regards, LaraLoveTalk/Contribs 07:36, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Okay I addressed all your concerns some of the things weren't sourced as they didn't really meet the criteria of a disputed statement to me as they're easy to verify, but I sourced them since they were requested. The numbers is the only thing unaddressed. That's because it's standard practice to put all statistics in numerals in sports articles (in the US at least) and all articles here do the same (see Tom Brady, Terry Bradshaw, Dwyane Wade etc.) Quadzilla99 10:38, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What I see WP:UNITS stating is "Spell out units in the text." I know the digits should be used in the table, but they should be spelled out in the body. Regardless, I decided to just read the whole MOS (dates and numbers) again and found that it reads, "Within a context or a list, style should be consistent." Above that it states, "Numbers above ten may be written out if they are expressed in two or fewer words, except in tables and infoboxes." So for the purposes of this article, numbers that require more than two words to express (like those of passing yards) must use digits, thus all other numerical stats in that context must also. Therefore you're right and I've learned something new.
This article, in my opinion, now meets GA standards. Thank you for your hard work. Improving this article improved Wikipedia. Keep up the good work and good luck in future edits.
Regards, LaraLoveTalk/Contribs 17:28, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why hide the wikiprojects?[edit]

Is there a rationale for hiding wikiproject coverage the way it's being done now? At least with the banner shell, people can see the projects at a glance without having to click anything. I don't have the time to read a long discussion right now. What are the reverter's reasons for reverting? Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 04:45, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See here. Quadzilla99 04:53, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I already said I'm not interested in reading a pump discussion. There's no acceptable rationale for completely hiding project coverage. Hiding details yes, but hiding everything, no. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 16:17, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So you refuse to read what other people have to say and your mind's made up? That's not in the spirit of how things work here. Quadzilla99 16:27, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is no acceptable explanation for intransigence on a helpful change like this. Nobody owns articles in the Wikipedia. Further, nobody is paying me for my time to read a bunch of lame arguments against the better choice. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 16:55, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2x Super Bowl Champ?[edit]

Isn't this a little misleading, since Simms was in the owner's box on crutches in Super Bowl XXV. He was not on the field for any playoff game or the Super Bowl. I'm sure he got a ring, but so did Jon Bon Jovi and Richie Sambora from the Giants that year, and it doesn't make them Super Bowl Champs. Can we leave it at the Super Bowl XXI champ only? Bill shannon (talk) 03:59, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bon Jovi and Richie Sambora didn't start 14 of the team's 19 games that season. Bramton1 (talk) 16:13, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]


GA Reassessment[edit]

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Phil Simms/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

This article has been reviewed as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force. I believe the article currently meets the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. The article history has been updated to reflect this review. Regards,--Jackyd101 (talk) 19:00, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
Prose is OK, a 7/10.
  • It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
  • It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
The personal life section needs to be copyedited for prose problems and better sourced.--Jackyd101 (talk) 19:00, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    a (fair representation): b (all significant views):
  • It is stable.
  • It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.
    a (tagged and captioned): b (lack of images does not in itself exclude GA): c (non-free images have fair use rationales):
  • Overall:
    a Pass/Fail:

Personal life[edit]

Hi, this is a warning that the personal life information in this article is messy. Any biography that is of GA standard must have at organised paragraphs describing the persons life outside of their field for which they are famous or otherwise incorporate that information elsewhere in the text. Some of the information provided in this article is messy, appearing in a sequence of stubby unconnected sentences rather than properly organised paragraphs. As a result, it does not give enough context for the incidents and information that is mentioned. For an example of how such a section might look, see Brian Urlacher and for pointers on how to expand and improve the section, see this guide. If this information is not improved then this article would be unlikely to survive a Good Article Reassessment and may well be delisted in the future. Thanks--Jackyd101 (talk) 10:37, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

College "standout"?[edit]

I've got no biases in either direction regarding Simms as a player, announcer, or person, but, in the opening para, I think it's a stretch to call his collegiate career "standout." He finished with a third more interceptions than touchdowns and a completion percentage under 50% (though he did set that yardage record). Still, though, the first para in the "Early life" section on his collegiate career actually states "Simms' numbers at Morehead State were unspectacular." Unspectacular seems a much more accurate assessment than standout.
Laerm (talk) 20:00, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I removed "standout" from the lead. Seems to contract the "Early life" section in the body. Jweiss11 (talk) 01:37, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment comment[edit]

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Phil Simms/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Source for expansion:=F30616F73F5E0C718CDDAB0994D8494D81 Quadzilla99 02:00, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Last edited at 02:00, 24 May 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 02:50, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

1986 NFL MVP[edit]

Information that Simms won the 1986 NFL MVP award has been recently removed from and then re-added to the infobox by a couple of different editors. After looking at National Football League Most Valuable Player Award, it appears that multiple MVP awards were awarded for 1986 by different organizations and that Simms did actually win the "Newspaper Enterprise Association NFL MVP award" for that particular year. Does this distinction need to be made in the infobox and cited, especially since there does not appear to be any mention of it in the article itself? -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:11, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Marchjuly: No. It was decided through various discussions on the NFL WikiProject that fine details should be left to explain in prose. This is to avoid the alphabet soup that builds up in infoboxes over time when selectors are listed, turning it into a jumbled unreadable mess. It's not perfect, but it beats the alternative. If it doesn't appear in the article then consider putting it in. And, before you ask, no; it's not possible to just decide on a single selector to list. Only just recently has the AP MVP become the de facto "official" MVP, but for a very long time the AP, NEA, PFWA, and UPI MVPs etc. were all equally prestigious. This article explains it pretty well. Lizard (talk) 08:48, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the clarifaction Lizard the Wizard. I don't have a preference either way. I was just asking because I've seen it added and removed a bit lately. At least now, a link can be added to this thread in the edit sum the next time it's re-added. I will per your suggestion, however, try to find a source and add the information to the article. -- Marchjuly (talk) 10:37, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Believe me, I've wavered for a while over what's the best way to present cases like this. Obviously, most people will tell you LT was MVP in 1986, and the average fan has no idea about any other selectors besides the AP. Today there's 2 selectors that still get independent media attention: the AP and PFWA. But fortunately for us, they've agreed on every MVP for the past 15 or so years. I dread the next time they differ. Lizard (talk) 15:20, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Phil Simms. 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) 21:49, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Phil Simms. 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) 20:16, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

GA Reassessment[edit]

Phil Simms[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: No improvement. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:46, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Significant citation issues, including uncited statistics and BLP content. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 20:32, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delist: Interesting article and clearly took a lot of work, but I think it should be delisted due to BLP violations. I can't even see a citation for DOB. Requires extensive spotcheck, which is beyond the scope of an easy fix. Ppt91talk 21:51, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I was the one who nominated and the main contributor for this article for Good Article status but havent worked on it years nor maintained it. In next few days if you guys are patient I can fix some issues. I know you can delist and I can re-apply but it would be easier for me to fix the issues in the coming days if you all are patient. AaronY (talk) 07:17, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That is indeed the purpose of GAR...take your time. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:40, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@AaronY Absolutely! Thanks for picking this up. Ppt91talk 00:06, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Any update AaronY? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:08, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I forgot about this, dang. Wish someone would have contacted my talk page. AaronY (talk) 09:22, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Phil_Simms&oldid=1208364742"