Interesting Football Reads On Wikki

[Forget Favre]

I take Wikkipedia with a grain of salt.
It's not anything I would rely on for a term paper or if I was a Dr. and had to learn a life saving surgery.
However I do look things up on there when I want to just to get a general idea for things.
Anyway, I came across this interesting read on epic NFL games through the years.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_of_Hands#1970s

Have you come across any interesting NFL reading on there?

 

[gwh11]

You're absolutely right; the quality of Wikipedia articles is notoriously uneven. There are excellent articles and truly bad ones. This one has several problems (as noted by the flags near the top). The writing isn't the best and it has several citation problems. And is the 1925 Cardinals/Badgers scandal really considered "common knowledge" by NFL fans? C'mon. I guess it serves as a loosely based (albeit incomplete) list of some significant games and plays.
Here are two solid, well-written football articles from Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_New_York_Jets
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_American_football

 

[Bogart]

The biggest problem I have with Wikipedia is films and film characters.

A good example is this article right here

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tony_Montana

Instead of explaining the traits and personality of a character, they just quickly write down a long descriptive summary of Scarface, yet it's long, it's also very sloppy.

I've read some articles on the 1986-1990 Cleveland Browns and they also are very sloppy.

If you need football stats, facts, and stuff like that, try this site, but it don't really have long articles on it

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/

 

[Forget Favre]

Wiki has tons of movie titles, plots and descriptions on there.
So I mainly use it when I need to find out what the heck I just watched or what happens if I don't finish watching the movie.

 

[Forget Favre]

You're absolutely right; the quality of Wikipedia articles is notoriously uneven. There are excellent articles and truly bad ones. This one has several problems (as noted by the flags near the top). The writing isn't the best and it has several citation problems. And is the 1925 Cardinals/Badgers scandal really considered "common knowledge" by NFL fans? C'mon. I guess it serves as a loosely based (albeit incomplete) list of some significant games and plays.
Here are two solid, well-written football articles from Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_New_York_Jets
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_American_football

Yeah.
They sometimes do have in there things that don't really matter. Make that, a lot of times.

 

[Raptorman]

The biggest problem I have with Wikipedia is films and film characters.

A good example is this article right here

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tony_Montana

Instead of explaining the traits and personality of a character, they just quickly write down a long descriptive summary of Scarface, yet it's long, it's also very sloppy.

I've read some articles on the 1986-1990 Cleveland Browns and they also are very sloppy.

If you need football stats, facts, and stuff like that, try this site, but it don't really have long articles on it

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/

Pro- football reference is a pretty good site. They do have a few things that are not quite right. They use the stats from 1960-1970 as two separate leagues for the purpose of which team was number one in offense or defense, so for the same year they show two teams as having the number one defense. For example, 1969 they list both MN and KC as have the number one defense for points and yards. Yet starting in 1966 they use the Super Bowl as the NFL Championship game. Which is technically not correct. (Don't go down that road, we don't need to) So they separate the stats by league through 1970, and separate the Championships through 1965, but they combine the championship before the leagues actually merged. Do it one way or the other. It is just a pet peeve of mine.