Talk:Field lacrosse/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Hi, I'll be reviewing this article. The rules for GA reviews are stated at Good Article criteria. I usually do reviews in the order: coverage; structure; detailed walk-through of sections (refs, prose, other details); images (after the text content is stable); lead (ditto). Feel free to respond to my comments under each one, and please sign each response, so that it's clear who said what.

When an issue is resolved, I'll mark it with  Done. If I think an issue remains unresolved after responses / changes by the editor(s), I'll mark it  Not done. A few items are just comments, marked with Green tickY. Occasionally I decide one of my comments is off-target, and strike it out --Philcha (talk) 00:46, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Coverage[edit]

  •  Done Has there been any cross-fertilisation between lacrosse and hockey / ice hockey? "Face off" and the opportunity to go round the rear of the goal are common to these games. --Philcha (talk) 14:20, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Both are essentially Canadian games that were formalized in/near Montreal in the 1800's. So it stands to reason, but the only thing I could find was that ice hockey may have taken physical play from lacrosse. Later box lacrosse, a derivative of the field game, borrows heavily from ice hockey. The origin of the "face-off" is an interesting question. Accounts of early games have a toss-up like waterpolo, but the modern game (before specialists) was much more like a rubgy scrum than a hockey face-off. I imagine there is a more of a connection as you suggest, I just can't find it.Mitico (talk, contribs) 14:14, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Done Does not make it clear that this is 1 of 4 lacrosse variants. I suggest the lead, "Rules" and "International competiton" should do this, and specify what is distinctive about the field lacrosse variant. --Philcha (talk) 13:49, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have updated the lead, history, and international to discuss the different versions. I have only included those versions that the Federation of International Lacrosse sponsors. Mitico (talk, contribs) 17:23, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Structure[edit]

  • Green tickY Similar to that of Association football. However it might be worth placing the rules before the history - in particular this would make it easier to understand some of the changes, e.g. offside rule or MLL's reduction in number of long crosses. --Philcha (talk) 00:46, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • It seems intuitive to me to have history first. Maybe cause most of the sources do the same. I will attempt to reword so that nuanced rules are not discussed first in the history section. Mitico (talk, contribs) 14:14, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Green tickY Again, I may have questions about points in individual sections. --Philcha (talk) 00:46, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Green tickY Now that you've mentioned that there are other variants with different rules, I think the case is even stronger for having "Rules" before "History". I'd suggest:
    • Variants
    • Rules
    • History - so you can comment on rule changes.
    • International
    • Attendance --Philcha (talk) 20:50, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There are a couple of reasons I dislike the above suggestion (though I appreciate it!). 1) I think leading the article with Native American roots makes sense 2) Most article/books start with some discussion of history ...as do other articles on sports on wiki 3) I don't want to lost focus that this article is about field lacrosse by leading the body of the article with section about the other forms of the game. Mitico (talk, contribs) 17:43, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What do you think about the reorganzation here? I think I have cut and pasted material (though somewhat butchered) to where it would first appear naturally...as opposed to using the history section as an extended lead. I'll fill in the History section with an etymology paragraph, etc. Thoughts? Mitico (talk, contribs) 17:43, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The current situation already has etymology - "la crosse in French". What else did you have in mind? --Philcha (talk) 17:20, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wrote that before I added the la crosse stuff and never went back to amend. Sorry. Mitico (talk, contribs) 19:21, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The only other concern I have about the current history section is "Women's lacrosse ... and limited protective equipment," which might be interpreted to mean that the men have no protective equipment. How about clarifying with e.g. "... more limited protective equipment than is required in the men's game"? --Philcha (talk) 17:20, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have used your suggestion wording. Up until +/-5 years ago, women wore no protective equipment. Now they require safety goggles due to some really catastrophic eye injuries. Mitico (talk, contribs) 19:21, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think I am on the same page with you now.I think the changes result in what you were suggesting regarding first mention of information. Let me know otherwise. Need to organize college & professional sections (what do you think of these?) & consider renaming "Ball in and out of play". Mitico (talk, contribs) 17:51, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Done I'm not sure how relevant is Laurie D. Cox's negative opinion of box lacrosse. I'd says it's more relevant to box lacrosse. In fact its inclusion here looks rather partisan, i.e. a possible breach of WP:NPOV. Are there any field lacrosse enthusiasts who take a more positive view? --Philcha (talk) 20:50, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Done The connection between box lacrosse and ice hockey rinks made me realise I'd missed an important question - is field lacrosse a summer or winter sport? --Philcha (talk) 20:50, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, not winter...I have included notes regarding the NCAA playing in the spring, MLL in the summer and the CUFLA in the fall in the Domestic competition section. Mitico (talk, contribs) 21:15, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That helps, thanks. --Philcha (talk) 17:44, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sources[edit]

Notations[edit]

  •  Done I retitled this "Bibliography", is that OK? --Philcha (talk) 00:46, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yep. Thanks.

History[edit]

  •  Done"These games were sometimes major events that could last several days. As many as 100 to 1,000 men from opposing villages or tribes would participate" could be be combined into 1 sentence, and "were sometimes major events" is unnecessary - "several days" and "100 to 1,000 men" makes the point. --Philcha (talk) 00:46, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay.
  •  Done How many versions of Native American lacrosse were there? How did the Native American version evolve? History of lacrosse makes it seem more like rugby ("these games generally tended to involve a huge mob of players swarming the ball and slowly moving across the field. Passing the ball was thought of as a trick, and it was seen as cowardly to dodge an opponent"). --Philcha (talk) 00:46, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The history page needs attention. There were at least three difference varieties of stick and ball games in Native American culture. The history page primarily discusses the Iroquois game. Tribes in the Great Lakes area employed passing, and the ball would rarely touch the ground. Iroqoius & Cherokee games were much more rugby like. Mitico (talk, contribs) 14:14, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Done The description of Beers' founding of the modern game needs copyediting as some of the English is clumsy, bordering on ungrammatical in places. --Philcha (talk) 00:46, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Cleaned up/shortened a bit. Mitico (talk, contribs) 14:14, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I've done a little copyedit here. Are you happy with the result? --Philcha (talk) 15:24, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Done "to later adopt the sport"? I'm a Brit and split infinitives don't play well this side of the pond. What's wrong with "adopt the sport in the 1890s"? --Philcha (talk) 00:46, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay. The split infinitive wikilink was a very helpful read. Mitico (talk, contribs) 14:14, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Unfortunately your new phrasing omits the date. This is in the lead, but the lead must not contain anything that's not in the body of the article, see WP:LEAD. --Philcha (talk) 21:20, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Date included in history paragraph: "Field lacrosse contrasts with the other versions..." Do you think I should also include the date in the referred to sentence (which is now in the International section)? Mitico (talk, contribs) 17:51, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    OK you've got the date. But I'm not sure moving the item about Queen Victoria to "International competition" works - "Her endorsement was enough for many English girls' schools to adopt the sport.[54]" re-introduces women's lacrosse when the article has already stated that it's a distinctive variant. --Philcha (talk) 22:03, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Done "Lacrosse in Australia]] originated in 1876 ..." - I know you want to get the wikilink in, but nothing lacrosse-related "originated" in 1876, it introduced in Australia in 1876. If you can't easily work the link into the prose, list it as another "main article". --Philcha (talk) 00:46, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I think changing it to introduced works. What do you think?
    You're still distorting the sentence to get the wikilink in, and it shows. Options I can think of are:
    • Write the sentence as naturally as possible, omit the wilikink and use a "see also" tag at the top of the section.
    • E.g. "In 1876 Lambton L. Mount brought the sport to Australia." This has the advantage that the link is with the relevant text. Some people don't link wikilinks on phrases or on anything that's not the title of the target article, but I think it's clear enough. --Philcha (talk) 15:24, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    What do you think of: "Australia was introduced to lacrosse in 1876 when Lambton L. Mount brought the sport to the continent. The main competition in Australian lacrosse is the annual Australian Senior Lacrosse Championship tournament between teams representing the country's states and territories." Mitico (talk, contribs) 17:23, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    "Australia was introduced to lacrosse" and "... brought the sport to the continent" say the same thing. Please avoid redundancy. User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a is actually a guide for Featured Articles, but I think you would benefit from doing the exercises in the section "Eliminating redundancy". --Philcha (talk) 20:50, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. I think that was helpful. Mitico (talk, contribs) 17:51, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hopefully I haven't confused things...but I have split these sentences between Domestic competition (senior championships) & International competition (Lambton Mount).Mitico (talk, contribs) 21:19, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The new arrangement gives a very diffwerent impression: (old) Mount first introduced the sport to Oz; (new) Mount initiateed Oz's participation internat comps. Or did he do both, presumably at different times? --Philcha (talk) 22:03, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Done} "Australian lacrosse is highlighted by "? How brightly? I think something like "The main competition in Australian lacrosse is ..." would be better. --Philcha (talk) 00:46, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Very brightly! (joking) Highlighted must be an American phrase then. I have changed it. Mitico (talk, contribs) 14:14, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, the boons of a common language :-) --Philcha (talk) 15:24, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • {done}} "which features the country's states and territories competing against each other" - how about "between teams representing the country's states and territories" to avoid repetition of "compet..."? --Philcha (talk)
  •  Done "The earliest collegiate lacrosse program " implies "in the USA" to most native Egnlish speakers (unless Canada also has collegiate programs?) - provided they are sports fans. But it should be made explicit for the benefit of other readers. --Philcha (talk) 00:46, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay
    Re "An intercollegiate tournament was initially held in 1881 ..." this phrasing looks clumsy. "The first intercollegiate tournament was held in 1881 ..." If you want to emphasise that it was the first of a series I'd prefer "The first of a (frequency, optioal) series of intercollegiate tournaments was held in 1881 ..." --Philcha (talk)
  •  Done Who were the other contestants in the 1881 intercollegiate tournament? I'm sure their clubs all brag about it. --Philcha (talk) 00:46, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay.
    Why have you not wikilinked New York University? Is there a complicated / discontinous history? --Philcha (talk) 15:24, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikilinked in the previous sentence. Didn't want to over do it. Mitico (talk, contribs) 17:23, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Reviewer's blindness, no witty suggestions about the cause, please :-) --Philcha (talk) 22:16, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Done "awarded the inaugural Wingate Memorial Trophy to the national champion in 1936" - well, who got it? --Philcha (talk) 00:46, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay.
  • In "The award was presented to the team (or teams) with the best regular season record" what does "best regular season record" - is this talking about a Superbowl structure with post-season play-offs and a final? --Philcha (talk) 00:46, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Done So what was the "play-off system" about? --Philcha (talk) 21:20, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    No postseason. End of the regular season the coaches pick a team to be declared national champion. I have removed "regular season" to avoid confusion. Mitico (talk, contribs) 14:14, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Item moved, to "domestic competition", but discussion continued here) So ther's only a play-off if the "regular season" (all-play-all) results in a tie? --Philcha (talk) 22:03, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
From 1936 to 1970 the national champion was declared. Beginning in 1971 an NCAA playoff was introduced. The sentence in questions now reads: "The award was presented to the team (or teams) with the best record until the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) instituted a playoff system in 1971."
  •  Done Big Red Votes Itself No. 1 is amusing about how Cornell busted "the Establishment"'s cosy little clique - it would be fun to use that. --Philcha (talk) 00:46, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    It is amusing, but sort of misleading. The USILA ceded control of declaring a national champion (Wingate) to a single-elimination tournament (NCAA). Mitico (talk, contribs) 14:14, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Why not spell that out? --Philcha (talk) 15:24, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh I see ... sometimes when you read something you wrote a billion times, you can't see what's missing. Thanks. Mitico (talk, contribs) 17:23, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Done Re "in 1921 an offside penalty was introduced. This limited the number of players that are allowed on either side of the midfield line" - could be combined, and I'd suggest "offside rule" as it the limit was imposed by a new rule, and we can deal what the penalties are under "Rules". --Philcha (talk) 00:46, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay. Mitico (talk, contribs) 14:14, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Done "Traditionally, players used wooden sticks made by Native American craftsmen" is not quite supported by STX lacrosse, which simply says that the original sticks were wood but nothing about the sticks used in the English-speaking game, and certainly does not imply that "Native American craftsmen" had any kind of monopoly. --Philcha (talk) 00:46, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Added a reference to Vennum, p 286 which reads in part: "By the late 1960's Akwesasne Mohawk stickmakers were...satisfying 97% of the world's demand."
    97% makes the point. I changed the link to one that shows the content (the one you get after clicking the button on your link) as the page displayed by yours looks very like the one GB uses when there's no preview. --Philcha (talk) 15:24, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Done In "The MLL strayed from the established field lacrosse rules", "strayed from" is a judgmental term, might be considered partisan. --Philcha (talk) 22:47, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Changed to: "The MLL modified its rules from the established field lacrosse rules..." Mitico (talk, contribs) 21:19, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I see you've moved it, and the new wording is much better. --Philcha (talk) 22:03, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Green tickY I love the pic you've added of 3 Indian players! And before I read your "little war" comment I thought the paint and full tribal get-up suggested a bloodless (hopefully) alternative to war. Great marriage of pic and text. --Philcha (talk) 22:03, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Green tickY I also see you've made the section more concise, and it has much more impact now. Nice job! --Philcha (talk) 22:03, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rules[edit]

  • You need to distinguish clearly between the rules for men's and women's games throughout this section. For example: I doubt if women need to wear jockstraps; one of the sources also exempts women from shoulder-pads, as body contact is forbidden in the women's game. This may require some restucturing so that the order is: features common to both; features of men's game; features of women's game. --Philcha (talk) 14:20, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Done I suggest "Playing area" should precede "Players", as that will make it easier to explain (if I understand it correctly) that defenders may not enter the offensive zone and attackers may not enter the defensive zone. --Philcha (talk) 14:20, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree. Good suggestion. Generally you are correct regarding defenders staying on their side, etc. In technical fouls I have tried to explain that the number of players on each half is what is important, not necessarily the player's position. As an illustration, this video shows a goalie crossing over the midfield line. In this case a total of four players need to stay on the defensive side of the field. Difficult to explain, but I think the article summarizes well - but we'll get to that later I presume. Thought I'd get it on the table & show you the highlight reel. Imagine a football keeper doing that! (ties to Eddie Toland comment below) Mitico (talk, contribs) 17:40, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    No need to "Imagine a football keeper doing that" - Hugo Gatti aka "El Loco" :-) --Philcha (talk) 17:58, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Done You refer to "face off" several times before finally explaining it in "Ball in and out of play". --Philcha (talk) 14:20, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Moved up explanation to first mention. Might need some tweaking yet. Mitico (talk, contribs) 17:40, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    That makes sense, thanks. --Philcha (talk) 22:13, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Done "Field lacrosse involves two teams, each competing to project a small ball of solid rubber into the opposing team's goal" is not supported by the source. --Philcha (talk) 14:20, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Source says: "The object of the game is to shoot the ball into the opponent's goal. The team scoring the most goals wins."
    I should have been more specific, sorry. "solid rubber" is not supported. --Philcha (talk) 17:58, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    BTW "... to project ..." - what's wrong with "shoot"? --Philcha (talk) 17:58, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Little higher up - under equipment the article discusses the lacrosse ball. I have expanded details about the ball. Mitico (talk, contribs) 17:23, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Done"Games typically have scoring in the double digits" is not supported by the source. --Philcha (talk) 14:20, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Removed. I remember looking to source this before and having troubles sourcing it. I must have forgotten about it. Mitico (talk, contribs) 17:23, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll leave the rest of "Rules" and its sub-sections until the structure issues are resolved. Please check that any terms, concepts and rtules are explained the first time they are used. --Philcha (talk) 14:20, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Green tickY just a comment: template:convert does all sorts of conversions of units, and automatically inserts the required nbsps. The only thing you have to be careful of is spelling of metirc units as the default is British / French, e.g. "metres" and if oyu want "meters" to need to add the parameter "|sp=us"." --Philcha (talk) 17:44, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Green tickY This intro to the rules now works nicely for me, thanks. --Philcha (talk) 17:44, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Playing area 1[edit]

  • Green tickYI've enlarged the image so it's just about legible, and have checked that it causes no layout problems at both 4:3 (traditional) and 16:9 (widescreen) aspect ratios. --Philcha (talk) 14:20, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I have never really understood image sizing, so I appreciate you checking out the layout issues. Mitico (talk, contribs) 17:23, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I never bother with what the rules are this week (it's a volatile part of MOS that generates more heat than light). I enlarge images to the point where the important info is visible to a user with poor vision (me!) and then check that it works OK in 16:9 and 4:3 - that check needs a widescreen, and I keep the "restore" size of my browser window at about 4:3 so it's easy to switch window proportions. The key thing is that most readers are unregistered, so they can't set preferences re image sizes, and IMO editors need specify sizes that are helpsful. --Philcha (talk)

*The vid at Welcome To The European Lacrosse Federation says the women use a longer field, and other differences, incl team sizes, who's allowed in what zone. --Philcha (talk) 13:18, 9 March 2009 (UTC) Legacy. Mitico (talk, contribs) 17:42, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Done "The goal dimensions are is 6 feet (1.8 m) wide by 6 feet (1.8 m) tall" ? --Philcha (talk)
  •  Done The para starting "A rectangular area called the “restraining box” designates each defensive and offensive area ..." is unclear. Do you mean something like "A pair of lines 20 yds from the center line divides the field into three sections. From each team's point of view, the one nearest its own goal is its defensive area, ..."? --Philcha (talk) 18:49, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Done I totally don't understand the final sentence of the same para. In fact I suspect it should be in a later sub-section, e.g. "Technical fouls", which mentions stalling. To take it in what I hope is a logical order:
    • What's a "stall warning"?
    • "The restraining box provides the boundaries that attacking players must constrain themselves", besides being ungrammatical, is a clear as mud. I'm no even going to ask more detailed quaestions about it, because I suspect that would only cause confusion. Instead of quoting the rule book, which might be intelligble only to qualified refereers, it might help if you draw some diagrams on a piece of paper and describe what appears there. --Philcha (talk) 18:49, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Done "The restraining line serves as the field marker where non-midfielder players must stay behind during the face-off" is ungrammatical and unclear. I doubt if it means each team's attackers must stay in their own defensive area, as I think that creates an off-side (if I understand that at all). Or do you mean each team's attackers must stay in the restraining box until the face-off process reaches some stage? If so, do they have to stand behind or ahead of the midline, or doe sit not matter? --Philcha (talk) 18:49, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Done "By rule, substitution areas, the penalty box, coaches area, and team bench area must be designated on the field" is clumsy because there's a whole string of nouns but the first, "rule" has a different function. How about e.g. "The rules also require that substitution areas, the penalty box, coaches area, and team bench area must be designated on the field"? --Philcha (talk) 18:49, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have used your suggested sentence. 17:23, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Playing area 2[edit]

  •  Done "The standard dimensions of the lacrosse field is 110 yards (100 m) in length from endline to endline and 60 yards (55 m) in width from sideline to sideline" is another exercise in eliminating redundancy. --Philcha (talk) 22:44, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Better? Mitico (talk, contribs) 17:51, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Er, it still apears to say "The standard dimensions of the lacrosse field is 110 yards (100 m) in length from each endline, and 60 yards (55 m) in width from the sidelines". --Philcha (talk) 22:29, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I thought the redundancy was "endline to endline" & "sideline to sideline". I am not seeing what the problem is currently. Mitico (talk, contribs) 12:58, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
E.g. "A standard lacrosse field is ...". You need another work-out with Tony :-) --Philcha (talk) 17:44, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I did not see that at all. I removed "dimensions of the". Thanks, Mitico (talk, contribs) 21:15, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Done Re "Positioning off the end-line allows play to occur behind the goals", it's really the placing of the goals well within the end-line that allows play behind the goal. --Philcha (talk) 22:44, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Rephrased to "well within". Subtle, but much clearer differentiation. Mitico (talk, contribs) 17:51, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Done What are the bits on the outside edges of the offensive and defensive areas (outside the dotted lines in the image) called, and what is their significance)? --Philcha (talk) 22:44, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmmm. Those lines actually create the "offensive area" box. I have always called it the "restraining box", but I had trouble finding a reliable source to confirm the term. I am not sure those lines are formally titled. Mitico (talk, contribs) 17:51, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    You need to find the term that's supported by good sources. --Philcha (talk) 22:29, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • added & cited: "A right angle line is marked 10 yards (9.1 m) from each sideline connecting the restraining line to each respective end line to create the "restraining box." Mitico (talk, contribs) 12:58, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So are there any rules about who / how many players can enter the bits on the sides? At present the para stops with "... connecting the restraining line to each respective end line to create the "restraining box."" Sorry if I'm being dumb / naive, just pretend I'm an average reader. --Philcha (talk) 17:44, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well the restraining box primary purpose is to serves as a boundary when a "stall warning" is called. I had moved that down to technical fouls, but maybe it is better here. I'll move it back & we'll see. I feel a little "chicken before the egg" here. Mitico (talk, contribs) 19:09, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Done "there are six players (without considering goalkeepers) in each area of the field ... Six midfielders, three per team ... Three attackmen and three of the opposing team's defensemen occupy each offensive/defensive area" is yet another exercise in eliminating redundancy. --Philcha (talk) 22:44, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Better? Mitico (talk, contribs) 17:51, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    No, the wording is almost identical, see this diff. --Philcha (talk) 22:29, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Before: "During a face-off, there are six players (without considering goalkeepers) in each area of the field—the defensive, midfield, and offensive areas. Six midfielders, three per team, occupy the midfield area. Three attackmen and three of the opposing team's defensemen occupy each offensive/defensive area."
  • After: "During a face-off, there are six players (without considering goalkeepers) in each area of the field. Six midfieldersThree midfielders from each team occupy the midfield area. Three attackmen and three of the opposing team's defensemen occupy each offensive area."
I am not sure how to be more succinct and still cover the information. Mitico (talk, contribs) 12:58, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Your latest wording works OK for me, thanks. --Philcha (talk) 17:44, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Done Are each side's wing midfielders required to stand on their side of the midline before the ball is put into play at the face-off? --Philcha (talk) 22:44, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Better? Mitico (talk, contribs) 17:51, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Not re the point I was asking about, whether the wingmen have to stay behind the face-off man until possession is resolved. --Philcha (talk) 22:29, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • added "These players may position themselves on either side of the midfield line." (unlike football) Mitico (talk, contribs) 12:58, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. --Philcha (talk) 17:44, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  DoneIs the mention of clamping necessary? Is a face-off midfielder who has won possession allowed to run with the ball, or is he required to pass it before moving? --Philcha (talk) 22:44, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Removed clamping. & added "If possession is won by the face-off player, he may move the ball himself or pass to a teammate." Mitico (talk, contribs) 12:58, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. --Philcha (talk) 17:44, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Equipment[edit]

  •  Done "Re Most attackmen and midfielders utilize a short crosse" - utilize? --Philcha (talk) 22:44, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have changed all occurrences of "utilize" to "use". I like the word, but I think I have received comments about it before. I try to avoid in the future, since it must sound awkward to others. Mitico (talk, contribs) 17:51, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Done "made up of two component parts" - 2x redundancy. --Philcha (talk) 22:44, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh boy, this could have been on Tony's tutorial. Mitico (talk, contribs) 17:51, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    As should your improvement! -Philcha (talk) 23:16, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Green tickY In the pic to the left of the description of the crosse, the player's crosse looks as if its pocket is deeper than the diameter of the ball, i.e. illegal per your description. --~
    Great observation! When I first saw that image I thought the same thing. I figure its either an illusion, or Australian club must be lax (pun) about the rules. This image shows a legal stick where the ball reaches the sidewall. I could include this image, but my thoughts are having two heads pictured in the same visual area might be too much. Mitico (talk, contribs) 17:51, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    In file:Lacrosse_head.jpg the pocket also looks too deep to me, let's not go there. --Philcha (talk) 23:16, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the image, the top of the ball (just barely) reaches the bottom of the sidewall. But we'll leave it be. Mitico (talk, contribs) 12:58, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • What is "Similar to American football" - the players, the protection or the sticks? --Philcha (talk) 22:44, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Equipment. I attempted to clarify. Mitico (talk, contribs) 17:51, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Done ::Does the source explicitly compare lacrosse w gridiron? Even if it does, I'd drop it - gridiron players also wear hip and knee pads, and gridiron has been described as a "collision sport" (by a basketball commentator, whose description of basketball as a "contact sport" was a euphemism). --Philcha (talk) 23:16, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think its' clearer without, thanks. --Philcha (talk)
  •  Done "Prior to the advent of the plastic sticks in the 1970s ..." - what's wrong with plain English? --Philcha (talk) 22:44, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changed to "introduction"

::*Now reads "The introduction of the plastic sticks in the 1970s..." Mitico (talk, contribs) 12:58, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Reads: "Prior to the introduction of the plastic sticks in the 1970s, players only option was a traditional wooden stick. These sticks were traditionally made by a Native American craftsman, and were expensive to purchase, and at times, difficult to find." Is there anything wrong with this?. Mitico (talk, contribs) 17:21, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Prior to"? --Philcha (talk) 17:52, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Now reads "The introduction of the plastic sticks in the 1970s gave players an option from the traditional wooden stick." Mitico (talk, contribs) 21:24, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Done Re "Stick heads may be from 4 to 10 inches (10–25 cm) for international competition, or 6.5 to 10 inches (17–25 cm) wide per NCAA regulations"
    • Need to explain that it's about width up-front.
    • NCAA?
    • "per"? ---Philcha (talk) 22:44, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    change to "according to" Mitico (talk, contribs) 17:51, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, but what about the rest of it? Am I right in thinking that it refers to max width? And why the huge range in internat comps, and why would anyone use a smaller than max head? --Philcha (talk) 23:16, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reworded to: "The maximum width of the stick head ranges from from 4 to 10 inches (10–25 cm) for international competition, or 6.5 to 10 inches (17–25 cm) according to NCAA regulations."
  • added "The NCAA instituted stricter specifications to make it more difficult to for players to maintain possession of the ball."
  • Most players uses the max width at the top, and "pinch" as much as possible at the base of the head making it easier to catch & not drop the ball. However, not all players ... there are so many variables
  • Most players use the max head length of ten inches, while using the minimum width allowable. What I have stricken above was totally confusing. Mitico (talk, contribs) 14:21, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK, and the explanation of why college games use smaller heads than internationals is good,. --Philcha (talk) 17:52, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Done Re "Most modern sticks have a metal shaft", I'd say "Most modern sticks have a tubular metal shaft ..." to make it clear that these are not deadly weapons (unless you know better). -Philcha (talk) 23:16, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Added tubular. No known deaths attributal to a modern lacrosse stick. Older hickory ones, maybe.(kidding) Mitico (talk, contribs) 12:58, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. --Philcha (talk)
  •  Done Re "The head of a lacrosse stick is ...", spot the repetition. --Philcha (talk) 23:16, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Can't rember what it used to say, but reads OK now. --Philcha (talk) 17:52, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Done "Most attackmen and midfielders will use a short crosse, a defensemen will carry a long crosse, and one midfielder may carry a long crosse" is a bit of a jumble. Do the rules limit how many players carry long crosses? (I think I got that impression from a source). If so, state that, and then which players use which and why, within the constraints of the rules. --Philcha (talk) 23:16, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changed to : "Up to four players at a time may use a long crosse: the three defensemen and one midfielder." Mitico (talk, contribs) 12:58, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Clear and concise. --Philcha (talk)

Goalkeeper[edit]

  • "The (goalkeeper) must pass the ball or leave the crease area with four seconds or his team will forfeit possession" raises the question of where the opposition get possession and what they are allowed to do with it. Might be best to deal with loss of possession both generally and in special cases like this under "Penalties". --Philcha (talk) 22:44, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Moved to the now renamed "Ball movement and out of play" section along with the other ball advancement issues. Since it is a "Ball in play" issue this makes sense, but it is not related to "Ball out of play" issues so this whole group of information may move or section renamed. Mitico (talk, contribs) 21:25, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Still does not explain where opposition play the ball from. --Philcha (talk) 19:11, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Added: "A goalkeeper's failure to leave the crease will result in the opposite team being given possession, in a lateral direction, just outside the restraining box." Mitico (talk, contribs) 20:56, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Defensemen[edit]

  •  DoneYou really mean you can whack the opponent on the knuckles with your crosse? --Philcha (talk) 22:44, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes. From the NCAA Rulebook (pg 63) "In all situations except when a player’s gloved hand on his own crosse is in contact with a line marking or the ground, that hand shall be considered part of his crosse." This is the more literal interpretation of the philosophical "crosse as an extension of your arm" as expressed in this article [1] (I also think this is an interesting article-possible EL?) & others. Mitico (talk, contribs) 22:05, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Ouch! --Philcha (talk) 23:16, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I wouldn't use that article as an EL, it requires knowledge of slang and tactics from 2-3 different sports (lacrosse, basketball, a little ice-hockey). --Philcha (talk) 23:16, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Midfielder[edit]

  • {done}} Why singular title when "Defensemen" and "Attackmen" have plurals? --Philcha (talk) 22:44, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Good point. Mitico (talk, contribs) 17:51, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • {done}} "Over time, the midfield position has developed into a position of specialties. Some midfielders specializing in defensive situations, while others offensive play" is noth redundant and ungrammatical (no verb in 2nd). --Philcha (talk) 22:44, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fine, and "fogo" is memorable. --Philcha (talk) 19:11, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • So there's no need to ask the ref's permission to substitute? You guys must be incredibly honest! --Philcha (talk) 22:44, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Attackmen[edit]

  •  Done "turnover"? I know the term from watching Superbowl, but others may not. --Philcha (talk) 22:44, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think this in the sentence in question. Now in ball in play section. Now reads "forfeit possession" -- "The team then has 10 seconds to move the ball from the midfield area into the offensive area designated by the restraining line or forfeit possession to their opponents." Mitico (talk, contribs) 12:58, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "... attackmen are responsible for denying the opposition a free clear of the ball over the midfield line" - "clear"? I know it's explained later, but I've read the article twice, both times with more attention than the average reader. Perhaps this sentence should be moved to the section that deals with the requirement to move the ball forward. --Philcha (talk) 22:44, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Moved to the now renamed "Ball movement and out of play" section along with the other ball advancement issues. Mitico (talk, contribs) 17:51, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Duration and tie-breaking methods[edit]

  •  Done Re " Lacrosse method of breaking a tie", "Lacrosse's"? It looks like one of those "what's the plural of octopus" issues where whatever you write looks wrong. --Philcha (talk) 22:44, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove "Lacrosse". Now reads "The method of breaking a tie" which seems as clearer. Mitico (talk, contribs) 17:51, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ball in and out of play[edit]

  •  Done The item about clearing looks odd here as it may arise from e.g an intercepted pass or a saved shot, without the ball going out of play. --Philcha (talk) 22:44, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Does changing the title help? Maybe just "Ball in play""Ball movement and out of play" Mitico (talk, contribs) 17:51, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK. --Philcha (talk) 19:11, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Does the rule about posession after attempted & blocked shots cause much argument? How close does a shot have to be to goal to qualify? The other games I (think I) know just have a "last touch loses posession" rule on out-of-play. --Philcha (talk) 19:11, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Whether or not something is a shot attempt is rarely contested. Who is closest to the ball when it goes out of bounds is. I really wish I could find a good cite for it, but the closest to the ball rule relates back to when the Native Americans played in open fields with no out of bounds. The idea being that in an open field the player closest to the ball would recover it, so therefore should have claim to the ball. It is the only game I know that doesn't use a "last touch loses possession" rule. Mitico (talk, contribs) 15:17, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Penalties[edit]

  •  Done"For most penalties, ..." - "penalties"? "fouls"? --Philcha (talk) 22:44, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Interchangeable, I guess ... but since the rulebook uses fouls I have changed to it. Mitico (talk, contribs) 17:51, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. --Philcha (talk) 19:11, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Done In "Any player that receives more than five personal fouls is ejected ...", "receives" is ambiguous. --Philcha (talk) 22:44, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • changed to"Any player that is penalized with more than five personal fouls is ejected from the game."Mitico (talk, contribs) 12:58, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Done In "The team that has taken the penalty is said to be playing man down defense ..." "taken" is the wrong word, as it usually refers to using a penalty kick / throw / whatever after the opposition has been penalised. --Philcha (talk) 22:44, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Common usage in the States & Canada, especially with regards to hockey. In football it is used as you have said, so I have changed to "The penalized team is said to be playing man down defense" in order to be clearer. Mitico (talk, contribs) 12:58, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A common language ... sigh. --Philcha (talk) 19:11, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Done "Assessed penalties are classified as either personal fouls or technical fouls"? I think I know what it means, but it's poor English. Also you need to explain "personal" and "technical" in this context.--Philcha (talk) 22:44, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Now reads: "Penalties are classified as either personal fouls or technical fouls.[34][38] Personal fouls are of a more serious nature and are generally penalized with a 60 second player suspension. Technical fouls are violations of the rules that are not as serious as personal fouls. The fouls are penalized for 30 seconds or a loss of possession." Mitico (talk, contribs) 16:51, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK, it's another dialect thing. --Philcha (talk) 19:11, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Done " Personal fouls are generally assessed with a 60 second player suspension" - "assessed"? --Philcha (talk) 22:44, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure why not "assessed," but I changed to penalized. Mitico (talk, contribs) 12:58, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Would you say "assessed with a speeding ticket"? Do we only think we have a common language? --Philcha (talk) 19:11, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe not "assessed with a speeding ticket", but "assessed with a fine or a tax." I have a brother-in-law from England & while he is fairly Americanized, when his family/friends visit there are so many times that I say to myself "I understand the words they are using, just not the order or the meaning that they are saying them in (especially after a couple pints). Generally this is because of the use of slang, as opposed to any real differences. These differences noted above most likely highlight (how brightly!) my poor use of vernacular. Mitico (talk, contribs) 14:39, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Personal fouls[edit]

  • Green tickY Should "Cross checking" be "Crosse checking"? --Philcha (talk) 22:44, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The origin I am unsure, but it is the same as the hockey term. The rulebooks use "Cross checking", so I am positive Yarnalgo is correct. I think "Crosse checking" might translate to "stick checking" which is stick-to-stick contact and does not describe "Cross checking" which is a stick/shaft-to-body check. Mitico (talk, contribs) 12:28, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Technical fouls[edit]

  •  Done Re "Off-sides is a peculiar rule to field lacrosse":
    • Should that be "Off-side"? --Philcha (talk)
    • Other sports have off-side rules, including soccer, rugby and American football. --Philcha (talk) 22:44, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reworded to: "Offside has a unique implementation in field lacrosse compared to sports with a similarly termed rule." Is this too complicated??? Mitico (talk, contribs) 12:28, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine, fans of other sports with off-side rules will get the point. --Philcha (talk) 19:11, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Etymology[edit]

  • Green tickY Lead says "lax" is an abbreviation, but this is not mentioned in the the main text and there's no ref. I notice Association football has an "Etymology" section. A similar section here could cover and provide refs for all the names. --Philcha (talk) 00:46, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Native American name baggataway - STX lacrosse. IIRC the tribes spoke a variety of languages - are there other Native Am names, or was lax restricted to one tribe / group that spoke the same language? --Philcha (talk) 00:46, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "... French explorers who felt the stick resembled a bishop’s crosier – “la crosse,” in French." (same page) --Philcha (talk) 00:46, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the main Lacrosse page is the best place for an Etymology section. Multiple Native American names for the game...commonly baggataway & tewaarton but there are others. I am going to strike "lax" in the lead. I know where it comes from, but I can't find anything I would consider reliable to cite. Mitico (talk, contribs) 15:18, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I think an etymology section would be good. In theory each article is supposed to stand on its own, even if others cover the ground in more detail; so it's a mistake to be over-concerned about duplication. It's inevitable in WP, for example there's a lot of overlap in Arthropod, Chelicerate and Spider. In particular, "lacrosse" needs explanation, and that's amusing, as it conjures up an image of an elderly clergyman flying across the field, robes streaming in the wind, and how does he keep his mitre on? --Philcha (talk) 18:21, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    So you might as well incl the most prominent Native Am name(s), as only the men played the game among the Natives. --Philcha (talk) 18:21, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    OTOH I agree w removing "lax" as What is LAX? (English Lacrosse Assoc) suggests they use "lax" to refer to a transitional game for young juniors, so using the term here might cause confusion. --Philcha (talk) 18:21, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The name of the game differed among tribes: in the Onondaga language it was called dehuntshigwa'es ("they bump hips" or "men hit a rounded object"); da-nah-wah'uwsdi ("little war") to the Eastern Cherokee; in Mohawk, tewaarathon ("little brother of war"); and baggataway in Ojibwe --> Is this sentence too long? The translations of word "baggataway" varied significantly in the sources so I have left out the translation for this one. Mitico (talk, contribs) 12:32, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

International competition[edit]

  • No mention of when International Federation of Women's Lacrosse Associations was founded. I have no time for political correctness, but your gender bias is causing gaps in coverage and other obstacles to reaching GA status (see comments above). --Philcha (talk) 12:17, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Done I've copyedited the bit about the Olympics, is that OK? --Philcha (talk) 12:17, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Women's internat comps? They're 50% of our species, you're missing a big potential audience - and other possible benefits :-) --Philcha (talk) 13:18, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Olympics[edit]

  • The indigenous peoples are a sovereign people that are generally exempt from US/Canadian taxes, laws, and other forms of government interaction. The Mohawks (&other tribes) receive some benefits & burdens of US/Canada governamce, but not all. Here are some wiki articles about this: reserve, reservation, and sovereignty. To me, stating "a team of Mohawk Indians from eastern Canada" is the best way to describe. Mitico (talk, contribs) 17:23, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think this needs to be explained for readers who do not live in N america. --Philcha (talk) 19:50, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have reworded to "In 1904, three teams competed in the games held in Saint Louis, Missouri. Two Canadian teams, the Winnipeg Shamrocks and a team of Mohawk Indians from the Iroquois Confederacy, and an American team represented by the local St. Louis A.A.A. lacrosse club participated in the events." Which is consistent with two of the sources. Added new book cite which shed some light onto the 1904 games. Mitico (talk, contribs) 15:10, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Done Re the 1904 all-Mohawk team, is there anything to support high Native American participation and / or share in honours generally (championships, medals, international caps, HoF, etc)? If so "I think that’s Eddie Toland in whiteface" (Lacrosse on the Olympic Stage) might be good - WP generally needs to lighten up, and I include almost any vivid or amusing quote I can get. --Philcha (talk) 12:17, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nice tidbit (UK Eng. "titbit") --Philcha (talk) 19:50, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Done Pl wikilink "demonstration sport" - to gain enthusiasts, you need to make the text accessible to outsiders. --Philcha (talk) 12:17, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Done Lacrosse on the Olympic Stage says the 1928 & 1932 J.H. Blue Jays had to win 8-team playoffs to represent USA. Worth mentioning as a contrast with the "any team we can find" of 1904 & 1908. --Philcha (talk) 13:18, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is "The United States was represented by Johns Hopkins Blue Jays lacrosse in both the 1928 and 1932 Olympics after the Blue Jays won tournaments to qualify for the United States." okay? or does it read awkwardly? Mitico (talk, contribs) 17:23, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Replaced with: "The United States was represented by Johns Hopkins Blue Jays lacrosse in both the 1928 and 1932 Olympics. In order to qualify, the Blue Jays won tournaments in the Olympic years to represent the United States." Mitico (talk, contribs) 21:48, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lacrosse on the Olympic Stage covers semi-failure to arrange a demo comp in 2000, not 1996. And the obstacle (insufficient international participation) and USA lax officials' prognosis for overcoming it might be worth mentioning. -Philcha (talk) 13:18, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good idea with the "prognosis" - I have added a quote and some detail. The 1996 is cited to the [2] cite. Mitico (talk, contribs) 17:23, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Done Re the Olympic Official Reports (1928, 1932, 1948), please provide page numbers as these are books ranging from 700+ to over 1000 pages. --13:18, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Listed in Bibliography as: pp 899-903, pp 763-766, & pp 716-717 respectively. Is there somewhere else this should be? Mitico (talk, contribs) 17:23, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, the question is where my glassses should be :-( --Philcha (talk) 19:50, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • p 763. "The Lacrosse Team of Johns Hopkins University was chosen to represent the United States and an all-star team was selected to represent Canada." Mitico (talk, contribs) 17:23, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ditto. Thnkas. --Philcha (talk) 19:50, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Green tickY The 1948 Olympic report had not finished loading after half hour, so I'll WP:AGF. If you get further comments about difficulties loading these reports (I also had to give the 1932 one a kick), you could use The internet Archive - see instructions at User:Philcha#Tools. --Philcha (talk) 13:49, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Slow, but I was able to open it in less than a minute. Would the internet archive make download faster? Mitico (talk, contribs) 19:33, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not blazing fast, but it's reliable. --Philcha (talk) 19:50, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

World Lacrosse Championships[edit]

  •  Done I don't see what supports anything about World Championships before 2010. --Philcha (talk) 13:18, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Good one. --Philcha (talk) 19:50, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Done U-19 World Games Breakdown: Red Division does not support "twelve teams": it lists 6 and notes that 3 are of these are new. If there's another qualifying div (?Blue) it might have a different number of teams (5 or 7) and might include additional newcomers. --Philcha (talk) 13:18, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have added a general reference to the tournament's website that shows the 12 teams. Mitico (talk, contribs) 17:23, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That clears it up. Philcha (talk)

External links[edit]

  •  Done I'd include as a separate item the YouTube vid shown at Welcome To The European Lacrosse Federation. I believe the majority of readers don't read refs as they are often to articles or books that aren't available to them or cost money. The vid is useful for the rules and samples of the game in action. The only downside is that the fitness required is scary (and I used to play squash). --Philcha (talk) 13:18, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Links check[edit]

Lead[edit]

  •  Done Re "Field lacrosse is a full contact sport played with ten players on each team", how about "Field lacrosse is a full contact outdoor sport played with ten adult male players on each team", which would concisely distinguish from other variants, including the "lite" variants for kids? --Philcha (talk) 22:03, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • How about "Field lacrosse is a full contact outdoor men's sport played with ten players on each team." Boy's lacrosse leagues begin around age 8 in the States & play under the same rules. Only modifications are some checking rules, & length of game.[3] So don't want to over-distinguish to the programs like the ELA's "LAX" or other similar ones organized by some groups. Mitico (talk, contribs) 12:58, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(to be checked when any main text issues are resolved)

That works just as well. --Philcha (talk) 19:50, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Done There are a lot of "level"s in the 3rd para. --Philcha (talk) 19:50, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Should mention the "moving the ball forward" rules and the restrictions on packing an area of the field. I assume these are to keep the game fast-flowing and aggressive. However the main text does not mention such a motivation. --Philcha (talk) 19:50, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I tried combining it with the "fastest sport on two feet" What do you think? Mitico (talk, contribs) 19:07, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Should also mention (briefly) need for prtective equiplent (the lead photo makes the point, but the text should be self-sufficient). -Philcha (talk) 19:50, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Done Should mention the Olympic demo / exhibition matches, and hopes of full Olympic status. --Philcha (talk) 19:50, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Images[edit]

  • Green tickY Appropriate, in right places, no obvious copyright problems. --Philcha (talk) 07:22, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've copyedited a few captions for conciseness, what do you think? --Philcha (talk) 07:22, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you. I see User:Yarnalgo put "circa" back in to "Lacrosse in Australia, circa 1930" vs "about." I think both versions are fine. Mitico (talk) 17:15, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'll reinstate "about" w a stern message. --Philcha (talk) 19:03, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Simplicity is the key...so "about" over "circa" is the better choice. Mitico (talk) 19:41, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have contacted User:Wgreaves regarding the new goalkeeper image. I like the image, but have some concerns as whether the uploader has ownership of the image. Mitico (talk) 17:15, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the copyright situation needs to be resolved. If it works out OK, it might be good to crop and resize to focus on the goalie and especially that huge crosse. I know to how to do this w/o re-upping the image. --Philcha (talk) 19:03, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have swapped this previous image in until the copyright issues is resolved. Good idea with the crop if it works out. Mitico (talk) 19:41, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • (unindent) I have cropped and added the newer image. Per the uploaders commons talkpage, the camera's metadata was also uploaded which suggest that the owner is the uploader. I am not an image cp expert, but this seems like the proper answer to me. Mitico (talk) 12:03, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm no copyright expert either, but the commons talkpage loks good enough. Like you, I prefer the new image. --Philcha (talk) 14:43, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Overall impression[edit]

There are quite a few issues to be fixed, especially in the "Rules" section. However I enjoyed reading the article and even the refs(!), and the issues are mainly presentational, not requiring much new research. So I hope that within a couple of weeks it will be in a state where I can happily pass it as GA. --Philcha (talk) 13:49, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for my long absence - a heavy head cold reduced me to a vegetable for several days, then I had to catch up with some real-life stuff. I've posted more comments above. --Philcha (talk) 22:03, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I understand. I am very busy in real life, so have only had a few minutes here and there to address things -- so the extra time was useful. Hope you are feeling back to normal now. Mitico (talk, contribs) 12:58, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Mitico. I see you've been working steadily on this. Pls leave a msg here when you think I can resume the review without getting in your way. --Philcha (talk) 14:14, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Philcha, Thanks for the great review so far. I am really pleased with the reorganization of the history section (at your prodding) and am making some improvement on redundancy issues (but still a work in progress). At this time I feel fairly confident in the article. I am still troubled by the choppiness of the paragraph that reads: "Lacrosse was first witnessed in England, Scotland..." in the Domestic competition section, but think it is improved. Have I missed anything? Further comments welcome. Thanks. Mitico (talk, contribs) 19:07, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Mitico. I've left this alone for a while because I know you have to fit it into gaps into your schedule. A few small points to clear up:

  • Green tickY Section "Playing area": re "the possessing team must keep the ball within the offensive restraining box", do you mean the attackers can't use the narrow boxes on the edges after a stall warning? --Philcha (talk) 22:25, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Done Section "Equipment" - should you explain that, as said in the source, the NCAA introduced smaller heads partly for safety reasons, because the larger heads made it so easy to control the ball that defenders had to get really physical in order to dispossess attackers? --Philcha (talk) 22:25, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Attempted to expand: ...The NCAA instituted stricter specifications to ensure the "safety and integrity of the game." As the shape of the crosse evolved, dislodging the ball from an opponent became more challenging. This resulted in an increased amount of force employed in checking. The new rules made it harder for players to maintain possession of the ball and is intended to reduce injuries. Mitico (talk) 20:34, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Green tickY(sigh) It would be really nice (but not essential) if you could find a ref for the explanation you gave above of the "nearest the ball when it went out of play" rule, as it needs explanation and it will remind some readers of games they played as kids - WP needs brightening up. --Philcha (talk) 22:25, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've been looking. I know at some point I'll find a cite that ties it all together. Right now I am finding indirect support, but nothing that really nails it. Mitico (talk) 20:34, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BTW I've asked another GA reviewer to do some copy-editing - there's a sort of informal rule that reviewers shouldn't do too much themselves, because they need to remain objective. --Philcha (talk) 22:25, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Well, I appreciate your willingness to cash in a favor for this article. I noticed some of Mattisse's comments on your talkpage. I have attempted to address these. Coming in to this, I thought my writing was a little better than what it turns out to be. I (think) am getting a better sense of redundancies but.... If/when the time is right, any copy-editing and/or constructive criticism from Mattisse is welcome. Thanks. Mitico (talk) 20:34, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've done some additional copyedits. Please check the diffs here, here and here (or all in one lump). Please let me know if you approve. --Philcha (talk) 09:09, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I like the changes. Especially like the combination of "clearing" and "riding" in the Ball Movement section.
  • I changed "final marathon" to "final of the marathon" in the final sentence. I think this is more precise. Let me know if you disagree.

Regarding Mattisse's statement on your talkpage re: "crease", I attempted to use quotes for jargon on its first appearance. I believe this is consistent throughout the article. Thanks. Mitico (talk) 17:46, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusion of review[edit]

I'm going to pass this as a GA as it now meets the GA criteria. It's well-referenced, neutral, reasonably well written, and complies with the required parts of MOS; it uses appropriate images with suitable captions and no copyright problems that I can see.

Well done! It's been a pleasure working with you. --Philcha (talk) 14:48, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]


- - - - - please add review comments /responses above this line - - - - -
 If you want to start a new section of the Talk page while this review is still here, edit the whole page, i.e.use the "edit" link at the top of the page.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Field_lacrosse/GA1&oldid=286654511"