Good articleTim Lincecum 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
November 12, 2007Good article nomineeListed
June 25, 2011Good article reassessmentKept
August 29, 2012Good article reassessmentDelisted
January 10, 2021Good article nomineeListed
Current status: Good article

graffiti[edit]

I just noticed this page has been graffiti'd all over today. I'm not an editor and I don't know how to stop it, but maybe someone could lock the page. I don't want to revert everything only to have it all go back. Just look at his stats (right now it says he has like a 1.0 ERA or something) or that he was the world junior poker champion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.155.108.66 (talk) 05:07, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Request for semi-protection has been made on Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection Bagumba (talk) 23:40, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled[edit]

Shouldn't there be something about his recent drug arrest and plea to possession of drug paraphenalia in exchange for having the drug charge dropped? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.61.133.134 (talk) 21:22, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

call up???[edit]

So when are the Giants going to call this kid up?--E tac 07:01, 1 May 2007 (UTC) Who knows, they will probably do it once Morris or Ortiz show some kinks. All I know is I can't wait for him to get the call and help me win my fantasy title! "We're just going to have to use our brains."............."Damnit." 16:40, 1 May 2007 (UTC) Hah yeah I was wondering because I picked him up in fantasy after his first couple of minor league starts, pitching has been killing my teams this year and he could help turn that around when he finally does make the big club. I hope he makes it up before the all star break.--E tac 08:11, 3 May 2007 (UTC) Well, now the guy is finally up in the Big Leagues, what do you think? Montira warran 15:52, 15 June 2007 (UTC)montira_warran[reply]

He's a stud.--E tac (talk) 05:52, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pitch speed[edit]

Was it a case of 100MPH on the stadium gun, but 98 on ESPN? The gun at The Park is notoriously unreliable... Js farrar 00:18, 11 May 2007 (UTC) Normally the park guns ar acurate but the tv stations are juiced but who knows.--E tac 06:55, 11 May 2007 (UTC) I watched his entire outing against the Rockies (in Colorado and not on ESPN) and he threw 96 mph fastballs for 5 innings straight--slippyfoster Pretty much all radar guns are unreliable when it comes to pitching. It mainly depends on where the gun is picking up the ball. The ball loses speed as it travels to the plate. So the closer to the release point the gun picks up the ball, the faster the pitch speed will be. You could get two different readings on the same pitch if one gun is picking up the ball sooner than the other. I would be very suprised though if Lincecum can throw his 2 seam fastball at 100 MPH like the article says. 4 seamer, ok. But throwing a two seamer that hard is pretty much impossbile because of the way you have to throw it. You can get as much velocity behind it.[reply]

Comments[edit]

This is a very well done article for a good young pitcher. It has many more sources than a lot of other baseball articles of players who have been around much longer (see Reggie Jackson for example). My only concern though is that the whole major league section is taking on a game-by-game log feel. Even if he only manages to stick around a few years, this will become very long and cumbersome. I can see having a whole paragraph on a very important game, but routine starts and no decisions probably don't warrant such attention. When the season is over, all this info can probably be condensed down into one or two paragraphs summarizing his tendencies (pitch speeds, etc...) and accomplishments throughout the whole season rather than on this is a game-by-game basis. The major league section could then be fleshed out with the info from the trivia section. If you try to nominate this for GA some day, the trivia section will be the first thing they'll suggest to remove as trivia sections are frowned upon in peer review. I hope this helps. This article, like the pitcher it's about, has a lot of potential. I wish more baseball articles would get this much attention. Great work so far. 75.191.200.21 01:24, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review & why article is on hold[edit]

On Hold because: Before I get to the review, I only need one change to the article before I approve it for GA status: Please remove the “Awards & Accomplishments” section from the body of the text. Instead, leave mention of the Golden Spikes Award right where it is in the Infobox, and then incorporate both the strike out and Baseball America lines into the body of the text (preferably somewhere in the “Minor Leagues” section). When this has been done, please leave me a message on my talk page, & I'll approve the article right away. Thanks! As for the review:

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:
GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:

Overall, this article is great. Most importantly, the references are immaculate; there are many different reliable sources utilized, and are properly formatted in the reference section...excellent work! I also liked the inclusion of quotes from other players, because it went a long way toward breaking the text up, and in addition really livened it up. While I only need the Awards section incorporated before I approve the article, I also have other suggestions that might help the article:

Hope you find this review helpful. Just make the change I listed at the top of this post; I look forward to approving the article for GA status! Monowi 07:19, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations on the article passing its GA nomination! Monowi 23:02, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This article is written with a fair amount of peacock language, thus should not be presently considered for GA status. Maybe that can be put right, but till that day comes..... Hushpuckena (talk) 20:15, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Good source[edit]

Lincecum winds up a fan of old-school music. Includes stuff on personal life, which article needs.User:calbear22 (talk) 09:23, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SI article[edit]

The July Sports Illustrated Lincecum cover article has a wealth of information that could be added to not just this WP article but others as well. I hope to incorporate the material soon. I can see that the web edition is linked; I'm surprised no one's taken a crack at it yet. dfg (talk) 17:03, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with File:Mlb2k9.jpg[edit]

The image File:Mlb2k9.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
  • That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --10:09, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Upwards of 90 MPH?[edit]

Lincecum throws upwards of 94-95 MPH, significantly more in baseball terms than 90 MPH. That section should be fixed to more accurately reflect his velocity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.238.152.194 (talk) 18:28, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lincecum rarely breaks 92 MPH now, so the statement that he throws 95 MPH in his pitch repertoire is a little misleading. He also rarely, if ever, throws a four-seam fastball. In fact, I suggest that whole section be re-written. Acordova (talk) 20:50, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The existing text is using a Nov 2008 reference. Suggest edits and provide references. Assuming the previous information was correct at the time, the existing text should stay and new information should be added as a change in pitching style over time. Bagumba (talk) 21:08, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Personal Life[edit]

Lincecum is half filipino from his mother's side. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.3.97.84 (talk) 18:51, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Controversy[edit]

How come there is no mention of his marijuana possession incident?

I was gonna ask the same thing... --67.134.239.205 (talk) 15:32, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Only an American could care about something so trivial. It's only marijuana for fuck's sake.

Only?Lestrade (talk) 23:59, 15 December 2010 (UTC)Lestrade[reply]

Lousy infobox photo[edit]

That has to be the worst picture of Tim I've ever seen. There has to be a better picture available. Toddst1 (talk) 20:59, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm trying to find or take a better picture myself, but with the season over it may be a little tricky. I'll try and take one myself at the 2011 FanFest. Acordova (talk) 20:55, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Have you guys ever seen him pitch?[edit]

I saw him once--he beat the Cubs. I think Bobby Scales got the only hit off of him. Lincecum pitched a hell of a game--granted it was the Cubs. But, man he was good. May I include my experience seeing Lincecum pitch against the Cubs. I think it probably fits somewhere! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.206.138.33 (talk) 00:10, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, because that's Original Research, which violates policy on WP. Argel1200 (talk) 23:05, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request from Srajakumar, 5 November 2010[edit]

((edit semi-protected)) I intend to add some information regarding Tim Lincecum's personal life. The details will be referred from reputable sites. As an example I submit the following link. http://www.jockbio.com/Bios/T_Lincecum/T_Lincecum_bio.html

Thank you

Srajakumar (talk) 20:06, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you provide the verbatim text you want added along with the citations annotated, it can be considered for addition. Bagumba (talk) 23:16, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Since there's no edit request here yet, I've deactivated the template. Feel free to readd the template if you have a specific request to change the article text. — Gavia immer (talk) 04:39, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request from 67.160.220.165, 12 November 2010[edit]

((edit semi-protected))


67.160.220.165 (talk) 00:01, 13 November 2010 (UTC) citation needed: for lincecum setting all time strike out record over first 4 seasons in mlb.[reply]

See MLB website article dated 9/30/10 titled: Stat Speak: Lincecum, A-Rod join elite company by Roger Schleuter


 Done - reference added, thank you for finding a source for that claim. — Gavia immer (talk) 00:09, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unorthodox mechanics[edit]

Instead of a continuous delivery, he interrupts his motion by extending his arm behind his back. Then he performs a quick, strained overhand pitch.Lestrade (talk) 00:03, 16 December 2010 (UTC)Lestrade[reply]

You're reacting to what you see. His delivery is in the legs, not the arm (as Andrew Baggarly puts it, his arm is "just along for the ride"), powered by the stride and follow-through. His command of his pitches throw after throw despite the head turn in the windup comes from his dominant left eye, which stays on the target, something most righties simply cannot do, and his amazing coordination. The arm extension is just one of a series of "mechanics" needed to needed to bring the ball to the release point without telegraphing the pitch to the batter.--Reedmalloy (talk) 18:37, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

mother not from filipino immigrants[edit]

His mother's great grand parents were filipino immigrants. Whatzinaname (talk) 11:08, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Out" pitches[edit]

In the second paragraph, it states that Lincecum uses his changeup to strike out lefties while using his slider to get out righties. Is there stated somewhere as fact? PitchFX has trouble picking up the differences between Lincecum's change-up and slider, so unless we have a citation for this I don't think it should be stated. Acordova (talk) 20:27, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bias on drug charge[edit]

The article states that his drug charge came with "additional coolness." While I may think that it was impressive that he could pitch well in the midst of receiving a drug charge, I do believe that "additional coolness" should be removed, for it is clearly too biased for a neutral article.

His Father[edit]

Edited article to remove the part about his father being an ex-minor leaguer who stopped playing because he broke his back. Couldn't find any information on this. Added an edit that correctly says that his father is reponsible for his baseball interest as well as his windup (he was a type of coach for lincecum in his youth and even today to an extent) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.231.242.151 (talk) 00:24, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Necessary?[edit]

Somebody reverted my edit where they restored the " " stuff; can someone explain to me why? --96.242.163.228 (talk) 10:18, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

GA Reassessment[edit]

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

The article fails WP:GACR 1b as it lacks a comprehensive lead. By appearances alone, it might not have grown much since it was promoted in 2007, as there is no text on his career accomplishments despite a long list in his infobox. The lead currently only mentions his current team, his nickname, and trivial mentions of his body measurements.

Also, there are numerous tags in the article for citations needed or possible original research, possibly failing GACR 2b and 2c. All issues have been tagged and unresolved for over a month.—Bagumba (talk) 21:07, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads up. WP:GAR only says "Allow time for other editors to respond." I'll give it another week at least for someone new to step forward.—Bagumba (talk) 22:17, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
With no further progress on the lead or adding needed citations, I am delisting from GA.—Bagumba (talk) 23:33, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Tim Lincecum. 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.

☒N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 05:36, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Tim Lincecum. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ((Sourcecheck))).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 05:18, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Recovery from current injury[edit]

Please add details of his current injury that is currently keeping him out of the major leagues. This is important enough to include a sentence in the Intro section.


.

Semi-protected edit request on 20 May 2016[edit]

Pitcher for the Los Angeles Angels od Anaheim 2601:244:4601:3445:E032:4D78:AEC:E561 (talk) 03:04, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: as you have not requested a specific change in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
More importantly, you have not cited reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 07:11, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 20 May 2016[edit]

Please add Los Angeles Angels to Tim Lincecum's list of teams, below San Francisco Giants, for the MLB 2016-2017 season.

The Los Angeles Angels signed Tim Lincecum for 1 year contract. Official team press release: http://m.angels.mlb.com/news/article/179226832 2607:F720:F00:4043:CCD:2D5C:27FF:B55F (talk) 19:25, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: The page's protection level has changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 06:20, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Early life detail graffiti[edit]

Hello, I am not an editor but it looks like someone updated the early life section to say Tim attended South Harmon Institute of Technology (SHIT) which is a reference to the made up school in the movie Accepted.

Thanks. Fixed that. EricEnfermero (Talk) 22:45, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Tim Lincecum/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Kncny11 (talk · contribs) 23:48, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Hi! I'll be reviewing this GAN. Expect comments no later than the end of the week. Kncny11 (shoot) 23:48, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Good Article review progress box
Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV ()
3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant ()
Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

Lede

Early life

San Francisco Giants

Rookie year

Consecutive Cy Young Awards

First World Series championship

Setting records

Second World Series championship and career downturn

Third World Series championship ...

Los Angeles Angels

Texas Rangers organization

Pitching style

Career highlights

Personal life

References

Stability

Images

Overall comments and verdict

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:
    There are some confusing sentences and paragraphs, largely detailed above.
    B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
    Apart from some general MoS issues (like when to use numbers or written words), the biggest issue is tone, which occasionally dips into resembling a sports news piece rather than an encyclopedia.
  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:
    Reference formatting looks good.
    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:
    There are a few permanent dead links, as well as references that do not actually cite what they're linked to. Some overlinking as well.
    C. It contains no original research:
    A borderline case.
    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:
    Tone issues mentioned above are not obviously biased, but could stand to be improved.
  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 fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
    B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:
    On hold until all issues are fixed. Kncny11 (shoot) 02:44, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    All my comments have been addressed, so I think it's time to pass this baby! Kncny11 (shoot) 05:13, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Categories