Talk:David Morrow (sports)/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Aaron north (talk) 05:23, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

I have concluded my review. This is a fairly short article, mainly because he is an important figure in an obscure sport, but I'm wondering if it is just a little too brief (especially regarding MLL). Also, this article has several other problems. I would normally be tempted to fail, but the nominator seems to be rather prolific, so I will hold the article for up to a week to allow time for corrections. Aaron north (talk) 05:23, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Y Looks good now. Aaron north (talk) 18:46, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Comments

First a quick note on the source from "Princeton Athletic Communications". Normally a "story" from a team is considered a primary source, but in this case we are talking about a retrospective on a player who was gone for over a decade. It would be fair to wonder about the reliability (biased) of the source and evaluate the analysis in the article from that perspective, but I have decided to call this article a secondary source. Aaron north (talk) 06:11, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Also, in a sports article I would usually require a lot more detail on most impressive/disappointing/whatever games, playing style, and career statistics, but lets face it: this is college lacrosse. (Do they even have standard player statistics in this sport?) You will not get a lot of in-depth game coverage on this at all. Aaron north (talk) 06:11, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

• • BTW, they do keep track of goals and assists, as well as save statistics for goaltenders, but defensemen don't have anything like steals, blocked shots, forced fumbles or interceptions.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:37, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

The following is a list of concerns that I believe need to be satisfied to pass review. If you disagree or believe I made an error, please point that out too. Aaron north (talk) 06:11, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

• This sentence has a couple problems: (He is co-founder of the Major League Lacrosse (MLL) and the innovator of the titanium lacrosse stick and hockey stick.) First, it is a bit awkward, I'd probably say "a co-founder of Major League Lacross". Also, innovator is a bit of a loaded word (positive connotation) and just looks weird here. Maybe just say he is an inventor, or improved the stick?
  • Fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:39, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
    • After reading it again, I think I am fine with innovator. I couldn't think of an easier way to accurately and briefly describe what he did in the lead.

• I am not extremely strict on citations, but you have nothing cited in "background"
  • Fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:04, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

• This part of the article is a bit confusing. (Morrow introduced the titanium lacrosse stick in the 1992 NCAA Division I Men's Lacrosse Championship tournament.) Lead aside, the reader has no idea where the stick came from at that point. It is sort of indirectly explained later on that he may have made the stick (did he?) but it is not explicitely clear. Where did the stick come from? I dont think you need to get into why the stick is significant yet (it is an improvement over the aluminum design) since you get into it later and I think it is appropriate to seperate his professional business from his playing days in college, but where it overlaps a bit more explanation is needed.
  • Not sure how much should be said at this point, but I have expanded the thought a bit.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:39, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

• This should be re-worded (Morrow noticed titanium was lighter and more durable and adapted it to the lacrosse stick the following year.) the two connecting and's are awkward.
  • Fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:42, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

• This sentence needs work, it is a bit of a jumble. (Today, equipment by all manufacturers supply and players at all levels use titanium sticks.)
  • Fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:54, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

• cliche or idiom bolded, should be replaced with simple neutral language (Morrow's idea spawned his own business venture, Warrior Lacrosse (named after his high school the Brother Rice High School Warriors)) Also, I would break out the bit in the paren into its own sentence somehow. I do use that more relaxed and casual style myself in conversations on talk boards, but the article should be more formal. Same issue later here: (As of 2007, Warrior Sports, which held a 40% market share, had several divisions (including Warrior Lacrosse, Brine Sports, Warrior Sports Canada and even Warrior Hockey), 600 employees and over 150 National Hockey League players using titanium hockey sticks.) While I'm on that 2nd sentence, it is also a bit large and could probably be broken up (5 commas!).
  • I think I have resolved these issues.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:56, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

• This sentence seems to be trying to fit a whole lot of content into one tiny vague sentence: (Warrior sports sponsors over 200 youth programs, tournaments, and camps each year, professional and intercollegiate teams and put on clinics and demonstrations.) I'm not saying open up a new section or anything, but maybe it could be expanded into another sentence or two? If the source is also this vague then I would probably re-word it somehow, the prose at the end of the sentence is a bit odd.
  • Fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:16, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

• (Morrow founded the MLL.) Woah, what? The guy founded a professional sports league, I realize this sport gets next to no coverage, but I'd think there would be more details. Who did he found it with, how many teams, what kind of investment was required, was it successful, what is his role in the league over the years and today, etc. This shouldn't be an article about the league necessarily, but if he's a co-founder, I'd expect more detail as it relates to him. I'm not expecting a whole lot like I would with, say an article about Lamar Hunt (co-founder of the AFL) with the lack of coverage the sport gets, but I'm wondering if you made this way too brief.
  • As far as expansion goes, I discovered the Baltimore Sun archive and expanded the article as best I could. Not much more business content though.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:16, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

The following is a list of other thoughts or suggestions to improve the article. It is not necessary to satisfy these points to meet the GA criteria. Aaron north (talk) 06:11, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

• Images are not really necessary to satisfy the GA criteria, but a free or fair-use image of the subject would be helpful. Also, if he was such a key figure in the creation of the titanium stick, perhaps an image of this equipment could be helpful as well.
  • Image added.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:45, 17 October 2010 (UTC)