Jump to content

Talk:Joe Cada/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

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

Comments

[edit]
Lead

*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 – this statement could quickly become out of date.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.

Career

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

  • 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)[reply]

*"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)[reply]

*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.

Personal

*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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]

*'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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
References

*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)[reply]

  • 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
OK, guess it's just personal preference in the end. -- BigDom 08:27, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Joe_Cada/GA1&oldid=346652686"