Talk:Joe Cada

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Good article Joe Cada has been listed as one of the Sports and recreation good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
Date Process Result
February 27, 2010 Good article nominee Listed
Did You Know

First name?[edit]

Being mindful that Cada is often referred to informally and among friends as "Joe" or "Joey", his real given name is Joseph, and that is how he is referred to in the official WSOP documentation and elsewhere. I wonder if the article should be formally renamed as Joseph Cada and have the more informal Joe Cada and Joey Cada variants redirect back to Joseph, instead of the other way around? -- T-dot ( Talk/contribs ) 12:22, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

The article started out as Joseph and then was moved to Joe. I was going to move it back but then went to Google News... 264 uses of Joseph and 2600 for Joe. The common name guideline would thus suggest Joe, but Joseph still seems better. 2005 (talk) 13:48, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
Agreed - and I would suggest that "Joseph" is probably in truth more appropriate at this point for an Encyclopedia or other "formal" works, unless he becomes universally known as "Joe" even outside of the world of Poker. I imagine his Driver's License says "Joseph". Celebrities and other Hollywood-type personalities certainly get to use stage names (eg: Larry King is Lawrence Harvey Zeiger), and the created stage names become the wiki-article names out of deference, since this is how they are "known" to the public. But I would venture a guess that the vast majority of the Google hits for Joe Cada were copies of other copies of media reports and such, and from fan forums, blog pages, etc. These liberally use the casual/informal "nickname" of "Joe", in deference (perhaps) to his youthfulness and his sudden "popularity" among his peerage. Joe Jonas and Joey Bishop would be other examples of using "Joe" or "Joey" in a celebrity's article name, instead of "Joseph", but I am not sure that Joseph Cada has reached that public-celebrity stage yet, where he can be "formally" known as Joe or Joey. One wonders what his Mother would prefer. In any case, it is not that big a deal, and almost certainly some folks here would consider it a wiki-world crime against the consensus of his brand-new fan base to use "Joseph" instead of "Joe". --T-dot ( Talk/contribs ) 21:00, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
This one strikes me as a no-brainer: it should be Joe Cada. Throughout the tournament, I repeatedly heard him referred to as "Joe Cada" and don't remember once hearing him called "Joseph Cada"; and, as stated above, the news coverage has almost exclusively referred to "Joe Cada", not "Joseph Cada". WP:NAMING says "Articles are normally titled using the most common English-language name of the person or thing that is the subject of the article." (Thus, Bill Clinton's entry name is Bill Clinton, not William Jefferson Clinton.) His driver's license may very well be "Joseph Cada", but I'm sure Phil Ivey's license says "Phillip Ivey", Mike Matusow's license says "Michael Matusow", Phil Hellmuth's license says "Phillip Helmuth", Scotty Nguyen's license says "Thuan Nguyen", and I could go on and on. We refer to them by their most commonly referred to names (correctly, I might add), and we should do the same for Joe Cada. — Hunter Kahn (c) 21:52, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
OK, Joe it is. Good precedence is indicated. --T-dot ( Talk/contribs ) 00:00, 13 November 2009 (UTC).
(addendum) And although the WSOP continues to officially list Cada as "Joseph", and I am still inclined to think that we should be matching that, and whereas Helmuth is officially listed as "Phil" and so is Ivey and Matusow is officially listed as "Mike", in most of the informal WSOP news articles even they are now calling Cada just "Joe". That said, I would imagine that Cada registered with WSOP and elsewhere as "Joseph", and knowing how things work in Vegas, they wanted to see some ID to prove his age beyond any shadow of a doubt, and that ID almost certainly also showed "Joseph". Nevertheless, consensus seems to be that "Joe" is acceptable for his Wikipedia entry. --T-dot ( Talk/contribs ) 10:59, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
I see him mentioned as Joe in many articles although I never searched under Joseph.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:32, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
Well, here are nearly 100,000 Google web references to one "Joseph Cada", but indeed there are about 4.5 times that many "Joe Cada" references. --T-dot ( Talk/contribs ) 18:31, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Poker and Gambling importance scale[edit]

Currently, Cada is ranked at "Mid" importance in the Wikiproject Gambling scale, and "High" in the Wikiproject Poker scale. I think the more appropriate rankings would be "Low" in gambling and "Mid" (or "Low")in poker. I know he just won the WSOP main event and that he's the youngest, but Peter Eastgate held the very same distinction just a year ago and he was ranked Low/Mid. Other previous winners like Jerry Yang, Jamie Gold, Joe Hachem, Greg Raymer, Chris Moneymaker...they are all Low/Low, and I'd argue some of them are more important than Cada. I mean, Phil Ivey was until recently ranked "Mid" on the Wikiproject Poker scale for crying out loud (although I decided to be bold and change his importance to high just now). I didn't want to change Cada until I got some sense of a consensus though. Anyone agree or disagree? — Hunter Kahn (c) 22:04, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I think it might be interesting to wait and see how "notable" Cada still is in 5 years, before ranking his article higher than the peers. Ivey's been playing WSOP events some 10 years, and has won 7 WSOP bracelets, and is still doing well at the "Main Event", so he should probably be a "high". I'm not sure what sort of objective criteria should be used, but if active and notable players can be somehow "ranked", based on years of professional experience and lifetime winnings or something, and then designate the top few as "high", the next several as "mid", and the rest as "low", then we may be onto something reasonable and sensible. --T-dot ( Talk/contribs ) 23:58, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
  • I would agree with that for the most part, although I'm not sure that "lifetime winnings" should necessarily be a criteria, only because the winnings keep getting higher. For example, Darvin Moon never played in the WSOP before his second-place finish in 2009, and he won almost $5 million, whereas people like Stu Ungar and Mike Sexton have been playing longer and are widely considered more talented, but have only netted around $3 million in total WSOP earnings. Perhaps a discussion should be set up over at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Poker about the assessment criteria, or even the possibility of going through existing articles and reassessing them? I mean, don't get me wrong, an assessment campaign is far less important than contributing content to the articles themselves. But perhaps such a discussion or drive might even spur some additional expansions and improvements on those articles... — Hunter Kahn (c) 00:42, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
Good points. Of course Sexton was just elected to the Poker Hall of Fame, so perhaps he should be "a gimme" for high importance. Perhaps lifetime earnings is not as relevant as, say, tournament wins or some other measurable metric. But I do wonder a bit about how "importance" of an article should be applied to Poker Players. Is "importance" meant to be more permanent, based on lifetime achievements, or more towards right-now temporal? Certainly Joey is arguably of the highest importance right now in the eyes of the WSOP, and among his peers and fans. I bet the "hits" on his article here is pretty high, compared to the Phils and Mike. But if Cada, bless his heart, turns into a bright "flash in the pan", and blows all his winnings in the next month, quits Poker out of disgust, and becomes a night time Shift Leader at a Burger King, then how long would the "high importance" of his article last? Which is why I would suggest a "wait and see". But, if he is elected to the Poker Hall of Fame next week, then by all means... --T-dot ( Talk/contribs ) 12:20, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
  • I agree that it should probably be based on lifetime achievements, although others at the Wikiproject who have more expertise than me could probably come up with some good criteria to work with. I also mostly agree with your "wait and see" thinking. I feel like Cada should be placed at "Mid" for now, since he's the defending WSOP champion, and then next year when we see how he fares in the 2010 WSOP we can make a determination as to whether he stays in Mid, gets bumped to high, or drops to low. Unless anyone objects, I'm going to go ahead and make that change for Cada... — Hunter Kahn (c) 16:03, 13 November 2009 (UTC)


Big props to Chrismarais55, ECWAGuru and TonyTheTiger for their improvements on this article. Out of curiosity, in any of the sources you guys have already seen, have you guys come across anything discussing how Cada came back from behind? At one point he was the lowest stack (I think his all-in against Phil Ivey was the start of his rejuvenation), and I seem to recall Norman Chad during the tournament saying he was down to only five big blinds at one point, and that if he won it might be one of the biggest comebacks in WSOP history. I actually have it taped so if none of the sources have that, maybe I can just add it and attribute it directly to the tournament... — Hunter Kahn (c) 16:00, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I'll have to dig through some articles, but I recall he had several double-ups going into the flop as a massive underdog. Some (but not all) of those hands were shown on the WSOP broadcast. Obviously, that's not discounting other hands involved in his comeback (especially considering we saw only 10% of all Final Table footage). But I believe you are correct -- he was incredibly low at one point before coming back. --ECWAGuru (talk) 16:11, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
Agreed. I watched ESPN's coverage, twice (and after he had already won), and couldn't believe that he was the one who was going to win in the end. At several points during the Main Event / Final table, Cada was "All In", far behind in the chips, and on the verge of being totally eliminated; and then he got very lucky on the River. Definitely a "comeback kid" so to speak. Not sure how to document it here, but there are many many primary (WSOP) and secondary sources (news outlets etc.) available (Google it!) that describe his come(s) from (way) behind. Whether it was a "record" comeback or something for the Event would have to come from the WSOP site writers. Just stay away from the "fan blogs" and "fan forums" - those are more unverifiable opinion than fact. --T-dot ( Talk/contribs ) 17:00, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
Here's a start [1]. The preview mentions that, at one point, he only held 1% of the chips in play.--ECWAGuru (talk) 17:53, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
Several stories mention how low his stack had gotten. I think that detail belongs in the articles about the 2009 WSOP and not here, but welcome other opinions on the matter.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:30, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Joe Cada/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: -- BigDom 20:50, 11 February 2010 (UTC)



*The lead should include a summary of all sections of the article, but this seems not to have anything from the "Personal" section. I think that perhaps his nickname and his views on the legality of poker could be included here.

*(b. November 18, 1987) ---> (born November 18, 1987) *"Cada is currently ..." – this statement could quickly become out of date. Rather than saying currently, say when he has represented the team since.

*What does "cashes" mean in the second paragraph? I doubt many people would know, and articles are supposed to be accessible to all readers so a brief explanation or re-wording may be in order here.


*"He is now a regular ..." ---> "As of January 2010, he is a regular ..."

    • The source is not current, and I rarely see his name listed as currently playing. Text changed accordingly.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:57, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
  • "Cada had been a professional poker player for six years at the time of his world championship.[7]" – This belongs in the 2009 World Series of Poker section
    • I am not sure I agree. His career summary can mention things related to the WSOP that are not in that section.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:19, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
  • I hadn't realised that it was supposed to be a summary, I thought the first part of the career section was about his poker career before the WSOP win. Now that you've pointed it out I can see that it's a summary but it isn't clear when you read it for the first time. Perhaps a level 3 header of "Summary" would be helpful. -- BigDom 08:27, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

*"Between 2008 and the November Nine" – When in 2008, the start, the middle, the end? Which November Nine, 2008 or 2009? These need to be specified.

*Is there a source to say that he "enjoys playing the "Sunday Major" tournaments"? Otherwise, this is an unverifiable opinion and should be removed.

    • The first ref following the statement says "Cada doesn't like to miss the "Sunday Majors" at many of the online poker sites". That ref is the source for both of the sentences preceding it. I did not feel the need to put the ref after both sentences. Do you want the ref after each.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:58, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Ah, I looked at the source but just missed that bit. It's fine as it is then. -- BigDom 07:31, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

*The last part of the third paragraph just doesn't make sense at all I'm afraid. It should be changed to something like "jcada99 and Joe Cada on the Full Tilt website, jcada99 on PokerStars and JCADA99 on AbsolutePoker".

2009 World Series of Poker

*The date ranges should have en-dashes (–) and should not have spaces between the number and the dash. *"already gotten him" ---> "already procured"

*What is "day 1C"? Is it any different from Day 1?

*"headsup" ---> "heads-up" *"120.1 million[19] before" – references should come after punctuation marks, not in the middle of sentences. *"total cumulative" – these words mean the same thing so one of them can be dropped.


*Cada's father losing his job has nothing to do with Joe so doesn't really belong in the article unless there is any currently unexplained relevance to his poker career.

    • In most GAs if you can name the parents and state their occupations, it is considered a plus to the article to give the reader a broader perspective of the main subject. Just because the career info is not flattering does not make it any less encyclopedic in this sense.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 08:01, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Fair enough point. To be honest, I'm only really getting started on the GA side of things here so I'm not always entirely sure on some points. It's fine to leave it in. -- BigDom 14:01, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

*'The Kid" ---> "The Kid" *"It's not about luck — it's about logic" – shouldn't have spaces either side of the em-dash *"Cada also plays indoor soccer." ---> "Aside from poker, Cada also plays indoor soccer" Also, who does he play soccer for? Is it for a notable team or just a local side?

    • Not sure what the term "local side" means, but this may actually be a stretch as an attempt to broaden the article beyond poker. It does not say this is a serious endeavor. I guess most guys have played in organized recreational sports. Could remove, if you wish.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 07:59, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
  • I didn't mean that it should be removed; I was simply wondering if it was known who he had played for. There's certainly no harm in leaving it in the article. -- BigDom 14:01, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

*Reference #11 needs a title.

Overall this is a pretty well written article, but a lot of jargon and technical poker terms are used that readers unfamiliar with the game will have some difficulty understanding. Once the comments above have been addressed, I will consider listing this as a Good Article. Thanks -- BigDom 19:26, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

  • I am acknowledging that I see this review. This weekend, I am working on E'Twaun Moore. After that, I will try to respond here.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:03, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
    • Thanks for the help. Usually, GACs give you a week to respond. My user page has gotten bombarded with image clarification requests and I am trying to track down images for the E'Twaun Moore article and related articles. Can you give me two weeks?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:57, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
  • I'll leave this open for as long as it takes really, I'm certainly not going to fail it when there's only a few minor points that need addressing. Seeing as I trust that something will get done, I'm going to leave it open till at least the end of the month. -- BigDom 14:26, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I see that you changed the Notes section to a Reference section. It seems that according to both WP:NOTES and WP:CITE the footnotes are suppose to be in a notes section.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:39, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually both of those say that the names "notes", "footnotes" and "references" are interchangeable. I only called it references because it contains a {{reflist}} rather than individual notes. -- BigDom 17:20, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
It does seem to me that at Wikipedia:CITE#Summary notes is the preferred section name.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:16, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
OK, guess it's just personal preference in the end. -- BigDom 08:27, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

What other issues remain unaddressed?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:20, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Criteria check[edit]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose quality:
    B. MoS compliance:
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. References to sources:
    B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
    C. No original research:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:
    B. Focused:
  4. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:
  6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
    B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:

It seems like all the comments have been addressed now so I will gladly pass this as a GA. Well done! -- BigDom 08:27, 27 February 2010 (UTC)