Talk:Hugh Culverhouse

Comment

Doug Williams was not the first black starting Quarterback in the NFL. There was a QB for the Denver Broncos who was black as well as Joe Gilliam who started for the Pittsburgh Steelers in 1974. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.89.88.195 (talk) 03:29, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Please Provide References for All Edits

I'm going to be expanding on this article; for the time being, I'd like to ask that anybody editing this page please limit edits to small cleanup edits, and to cited material for which references are provided. As it stands, the article appears to have been written off of the top of somebody's head, and contains numerous factual errors. These include:

• Tom McCloskey did not back out of the Buccaneer franchise due to financial problems,
• There may have been a problem with McCloskey's pending divorce, but facts here need to be verifiable, not "reportedly",
• The Buccaneers were not named after the Gasparilla Festival,
• Team payroll had little to do with team success in an age before free agency, when players were tied to whichever team had drafted them,
• Selmon was not the team's only "genuine star"; if the Bay Area were a larger media market, then David Lewis, Richard Wood, James Wilder, Jimmie Giles, Kevin House, Neal Colzie, Doug Williams, Dave Logan, Hugh Green, and Cecil Johnson would all have gotten star-level attention. These were the days before 24-hour sports networks, and players in cities where the networks were headquartered - New York and Los Angeles - got the majority of the coverage. Green was considered to be second only to Lawrence Taylor among outside linebackers, and Wilder set several NFL rushing records. And if they let so many good players leave, why didn't any of them become stars elsewhere? (Apart from Steve Young, who didn't give any indication of having star-level talent during his stints with either the Buccaneers or the L.A. Express, and who was shipped off in a coaching, not ownership, decision),
• Passing up Tony Dorsett was only in hindsight considered to be a questionable selection, and then only because Ricky Bell took ill and died. The general consensus of the time was that Bell was the better fit for the Buccaneers, as Dorsett was not considered durable enough to run behind the makeshift Buccaneer line. Anyway, this section will be deleted, as Culverhouse did not oversee Buccaneer drafts.

If the original author had provided references, they would have done the research that would have prevented these inaccuracies from being included in the article. Overall, the article is inadequate as a biography of Culverhouse, because it exclusively focuses on his ownership of the Buccaneers. His life outside of NFL ownership was likely notable enough to warrant inclusion in Wikipedia, and it needs to be addressed. Dementia13 (talk) 19:38, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

You've certainly taken this article a long way, and it's pretty darn good at this point. However, it's a bit frustrating that only a very few of the new citations are linked to a source that is readable online, necessitating a visit to a Tampa public library to read the original articles.

I realize that many of these news articles are too old to be archived online, but I'm sure that more of the non-linked recent articles are available somewhere. I'll try to help as well, but as a teacher, this is a really bad time for me to take on any projects. Thanks, and great job improving this article!... Zeng8r (talk) 00:57, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

If you go to news.google.com and do an advanced archive search, you'll be able to find everything (correction: almost everything, I got some Washington Sun and New York Times sources from the Lexis-Nexis academic database. That's still online, but not accessible to everybody. If you have access to a university library, you should be able to access it, and they should have the Bay Area newspapers in some format or other) I've used. I almost always prefer to use print citations. Not only are they generally considered more reputable than most online sources, but when you deal with matters of the age of what's in the article, you find that a lot of legends have grown up around them that aren't necessarily true. Then, because they're so well-known, writers include them in more recent articles without verifying them. As an example, every article about John McKay in the last 20 years mentions that he once said "I'm in favor of it" when asked about his 1976 offense's execution, but of the hundreds of articles I've read from 1976, not one ever mentions that he said that, and some who were close to him believe that it never happened. (Any "fact" that can be prefaced with "Everybody knows that.....", is exactly the "fact" that we need to mistrust, because that's when we start ignoring why we think it's true). I feel much safer going with what was written at the time, by people who were there. Thanks for the good words; I haven't got much further to go with this, but it's at the point where the last few pieces of information this article needs are ones that don't dig up very easily. Dementia13 (talk) 15:50, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Wow, thanks for the tip on the google news archive search function. I'd never used it until this evening, but I've been searching for old articles on various subjects for the last couple of hours now. Great resource, and for many uses... Zeng8r (talk) 00:53, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

GA Review

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

Reviewer: TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:29, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

• I am going to read this through and comment along the way. Please respond line by line. I will strike as I feel issues are resolved. Then I will do a checklist.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:24, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

• Please see WP:LEAD and ensure that this LEAD is the proper length (about 3 paragraphs) and summarizes the entire article (I.E., it should mention the main point of each subsection of the current article although I may suggest reformatting).--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:11, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
• This article needs an infobox. See other sportspersons at WP:GA.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:14, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
• Some images would be nice. If worse comes to worse tangential images like Tampa Bay's stadium would be acceptable. Check flickr and make some licensing requests by flickrmail if you can not find anything on commons.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:14, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
• The citations look kind of rough. Can you link the periodicals and maybe add some page numbers?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:16, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
• One more comment. Those links at the bottom either belong in a separate external links or general references section.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:35, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
  • I am quickfailing this article for need of general wikification.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:19, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Hugh Culverhouse/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Wikipedian2 (talk) 12:29, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

I will be reviewing using the following criteria :

   Well-written:

(a) the prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct; and (b) it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.[2] -MEETS THIS CRITERIA.-

   Factually accurate and verifiable:

(a) it provides references to all sources of information in the section(s) dedicated to the attribution of these sources according to the guide to layout; -MEETS THIS CRITERIA.- (b) it provides in-line citations from reliable sources 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;[3] -MEETS THIS CRITERIA.- and (c) it contains no original research. -MEETS THIS CRITERIA.-

   Broad in its coverage:

(a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic;[4] and -MEETS THIS CRITERIA.- (b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). -MEETS THIS CRITERIA.-

Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias. -MEETS THIS CRITERIA.- Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.[5] -MEETS THIS CRITERIA.-

   Illustrated, if possible, by images:[6] -FAILED THIS CRITERIA.- 

(a) images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content; and (b) images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.[7]

Unfortunately at this time, I cannot accept this as a Good Article. The reason for this is that it does not contain an image. Once an image is added, you may resubmit. Thank-you. Wikipedian2 (talk) 12:41, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Hugh Culverhouse/GA3. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 15:47, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

I'll review this article shortly. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 15:47, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Here are the issues I found:

• A few more things can be linked in the lead, namely Los Angeles Rams and Doug Williams.
• The newspaper names in the references could be linked.

These are really minor issues though, and I'm not going to let them hold off the GAN. As a result, I'll pass the article. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 04:14, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Hugh Culverhouse. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110707141026/http://files.andelman.com/ARTICLES/culverhouse.html to http://files.andelman.com/ARTICLES/culverhouse.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120401090400/http://lubbockonline.com/news/030697/lawyers.htm to http://www.lubbockonline.com/news/030697/lawyers.htm

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) 01:19, 15 December 2017 (UTC)