Talk:2008 NCAA Division I men's lacrosse tournament

Image of Navy stadium

that's a badly outdated picture of navy marine corps memorial. much construction since then.Toyokuni3 (talk) 20:45, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Syracuse NINE National Championships

what part of 'vacated' do you not understand? syracuse cheated (paul gait played while ineligible)and the national championship was VACATED. syracuse was NOT the national champion in 1990. the 1990 championship is VACANT. as in, NO CHAMPION.the syracuse people apparently feel differently, but it's not for them to say. the ncaa says the championship for that year is VACANT!10-1=9. a claim of 10 championships with a footnote saying 'uh, really only 9' isn't good enough.Toyokuni3 (talk) 02:26, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I understand exactly what you are saying. However, the NCAA disagrees with your assessment of 9th vs 10th. See [1]. If the NCAA official website calls it the "record tenth nat'l championship", (among other references) than that is what it is. Otherwise we may be violating WP:OR. The article has a footnote that discussed this vacated championship. Similiar to how the NCAA shows it in its record books. (see [2]) -Mitico (talk)

Actually, the reference you cite at the NCAA website is just the press release that Syracuse released. There was no vetting of it and the official discipline still stands. AlbertHall (talk) 02:40, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

you will note that that 10th 'championship' is mentioned in the header only. in my not so humble opinion, a headline isn't much of a reference. nowhere in the copy of that article is the issue even mentioned. moreover, albert hall is absolutely correct. that is copy provided the ncaa by syracuse, and even they didn't have the balls to make more than a passing mention. this ain't over.Toyokuni3 (talk) 04:18, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Since this effects other years championships (some of which still need to be created) and the main page I'd like to move the conversation over to Talk:NCAA Men's Lacrosse Championship. (Also to avoid two discussions) Toyokuni3 - I don't really have a horse in this race - I am just looking to be clear and consistent. Thanks, Mitico (talk) 12:23, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

as you will no doubt have noted, albert hall and i do have a bias here.i won't deny it.i have no problem with moving the discussion and letting it be decided on its merits. moreover, i understand your position entirely. i also have no problem with leaving the footnote. after all, the episode did occur.regards. Toyokuni3 (talk) 14:07, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

all right, i think i can live with that. but, by way of improving the article, a more recent pic of navy marine corps memorial stadium really is needed.(i have been an annapolis resident since the 80's.) this pic is before a multi-million dollar refurb and expansion in the early part of this decade. the whole of the bottom end (in this pic) is now enclosed and is 'luxury boxes', for want of a better term. regards.Toyokuni3 (talk) 16:59, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:2008 NCAA Division I Men's Lacrosse Championship/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review. GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

---

This article is in decent shape, but it needs more work before it becomes a Good Article.

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   In the Qualifying teams section, it would be best to add the year the tournament was announced. Same section, second paragraph, it would be best to replace "hold" with "held".

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

   In the lead, it would be best to link "May 10" once, per here. It would be best to link players names in the article, but make sure they don't get repeated and if they have an article too. If no article is available for that player, then that's fine.

2. Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose):

   C. It contains no original research:

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   If the above statement can be answered, I will pass the article. Good luck with improving this article! Also, contact me if the above statements are answered.

--  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 17:30, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

---

• 1A: I have added the tournament year in the qualifying teams section piping 2008 in sports (I think this is what you meant.) Also have changed hold-> held as stated.
• 1B: I have "delinked" the second occurrence of "May 10" in the lead. At this time, all players with articles have been linked. Since some of these are still college athletes: WP:Athlete applies. (Of course, a case could be made for general notability outside of this standard)
• Any other changes or suggestions, please let me know.

-- Mitico (talk) 21:06, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, after reading the article, I have gone off and passed the article. Congratulations. If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it to a GA review. Thank you to Mitico who worked hard to bring it to this status, and congratulations. ;) --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 15:43, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Dead link

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

• http://www.ncaa.com/lacrosse-mens/article.aspx?id=228060
  • In Great Western Lacrosse League on 2011-03-22 12:41:50, 404 Not Found
  • In 2008 NCAA Division I Men's Lacrosse Championship on 2011-06-16 13:48:18, 404 Not Found

--JeffGBot (talk) 13:48, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Dead link 2

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

• http://www.insidelacrosse.com/page.cfm?pagerid=2&news=fdetail&storyid=190487
  • In Field lacrosse on 2011-03-19 05:58:13, 404 Not Found
  • In 2008 NCAA Division I Men's Lacrosse Championship on 2011-06-16 13:48:34, 404 Not Found

--JeffGBot (talk) 13:48, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Dead link 3

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

• http://insidelacrosse.com/page.cfm?pagerid=2&news=fdetail&storyid=189559
  • In Great Western Lacrosse League on 2011-03-22 12:41:50, 404 Not Found
  • In 2008 NCAA Division I Men's Lacrosse Championship on 2011-06-16 13:48:41, 404 Not Found

--JeffGBot (talk) 13:49, 16 June 2011 (UTC)