Jump to content

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]

Structure

[edit]
  • 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:
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]
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]
That helps, thanks. --Philcha (talk) 17:44, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

[edit]

Notations

[edit]
  • 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 "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]
  • 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]
  • Okay.
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."

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]
  • 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]
E.g. "A standard lacrosse field is ...". You need another work-out with Tony :-) --Philcha (talk) 17:44, 3 April 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]
  • 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]
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]
Thanks. --Philcha (talk) 17:44, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Equipment

[edit]
I think its' clearer without, thanks. --Philcha (talk)
  • 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]
  • 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]
Thanks. --Philcha (talk)
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]
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]

Defensemen

[edit]

Midfielder

[edit]
Fine, and "fogo" is memorable. --Philcha (talk) 19:11, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Attackmen

[edit]
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]

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]

Ball in and out of play

[edit]
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]
Thanks. --Philcha (talk) 19:11, 3 April 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]
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]
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]
  • 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]
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]

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]
  • 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]
  •  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)
No, the question is where my glassses should be :-( --Philcha (talk) 19:50, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ditto. Thnkas. --Philcha (talk) 19:50, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not blazing fast, but it's reliable. --Philcha (talk) 19:50, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

World Lacrosse Championships

[edit]
Good one. --Philcha (talk) 19:50, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That clears it up. Philcha (talk)
[edit]
[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]
  • 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]

Images

[edit]
I'll reinstate "about" w a stern message. --Philcha (talk) 19:03, 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]
  • (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"