@3family6, Figureskatingfan, Jaguar, and MrWooHoo: I have been working on this GA Review - Talk:Kiss Me Once/GA1 - since March 2nd. The nominator has been somewhat incommunicado but an IP-editor popped in a week ago, did some edits, said they were CaliforniaDreamsFan, were having connection problems but haven't been back. In my opinion the article fails GA Criteria 1A as well as aspects of 2A, but I need to know if I have given this Review enough time to Fail it. I hate to do it but I think the prose issues are simply too pervasive to be corrected in the course of this Review. Shearonink (talk) 16:30, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"I've found the reviews to be very lacking in actual critique, with superfluous comments under each criterion that seem to "count" as part of this competition. Looking at their other reviews, however, I see longer reviews that are worthy of GAN standards.
I would just like to raise concerns here. I do not think this is deliberate or malicious, but I would like actual, critical feedback on my nominations, as they are done in series and I use comments from previous nominations to improve future ones."
Going through my GA Reviews since I started the GA Cup, these are the Reviews that this editor wrote/nominated and that they are concerned about:
I am absolutely gobsmacked. I truly enjoyed reading each article and think the prose is top-notch, statements are scrupulously researched, almost every image has had all the proper permissions, the references are all in agreement with each other and are well-done, the articles are broad in their scope, they're neutral and don't have any edit-warring that I could find... I always think that when I come upon one of SounderBruce's articles that they should be held up as examples of what editors should strive for when they submit content to the WP:GA process.
Since SounderBruce has raised this issue the GA Cup will need some sort of ruling as soon as possible (and probably from as many of the Cup Judges as possible) because 1) if these Reviews are thrown-out then the placement of the competitors will be affected and 2)if they are all thrown-out then I should be disqualified from participating in this GA Cup. Shearonink (talk) 00:15, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that the GA Cup has been suspended due to the other judges being unavailable for the foreseeable future. I admittedly have been less active since June and was too busy and lazy to attend to those final rounds. I think we'll have to decide if there's enough interest for another GA Cup. If this is the case I'll be happy to step up and take on the role of an active judge again. That being said, the Women in Red contest runs in November so we couldn't run them concurrently. JAGUAR13:25, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Judging by the amount of outstanding nominations we currently have, if we can start one, it might be a good way to trim down the time it takes for a nomination to be reviewed. It would also encourage others (including myself) to review more articles than they already are. --Bcschneider53 (talk) 13:32, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. One of the issues with the most recent GA cup, which was not nearly as successful as prior ones, was the reduced availability of judges, which resulted in less publicity, delayed checking of reviews and finding issues with new reviewers, and problems in the changeover between rounds. We need judges who know what they are doing and can commit to a four month process. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:07, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think perhaps we should be open to changing the model of the GA Cup in the future. I've noticed less participation over the years. Active judges are only part of the problem, it seems that exposure and interest are just as important. Would people be interested if the GA Cup was more about promoting GAs themselves as well as reviewing them and reducing backlog? Perhaps we could consolidate those two ideas and implement them in a future GA Cup? Or should we leave content creation for the WikiCup? Would do people think? JAGUAR22:09, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As for me, guys, I had to step back from much of my involvement in WP, both as an editor and as a GA Cup judge, because of RL busyness. I regret it because I think that this competition has made a big difference. Much of that busyness has ended now, so I'm better able to commit to another round of competition. I agree that the success of the GA Cup depends upon the commitment of the judges. One of the reasons we have multiple judges is so that one can step up when others are unable, for whatever reason, to devote the time and effort. I don't think that we can do anything to avoid this fact. Remember that the GA Cup has only been around for three years; compare that to the Wikicup, a given in the WP community because it's well-established and much older. It took time for the Wikicup to become established, and we need the same. Until then, we need to promote it well, something I wasn't able to manage as I have in the past, which has included banners and writing articles for the Signpost. I'm able now to devote the time and effort to do that, too; for example, I've always wanted to apply for a grant and offer prizes to our competitors, which I'd like to handle the next time we conduct the GA Cup. I recommend, then, starting it in January. I agree that we shouldn't conflict with the Women In Red contest, and although I know that a January start date would conflict with the Wikicup, we've held the GA Cup concurrently with it in the past because they complement each other well. I also can't commit to anything until after November anyway, since I'm sitting for my clinical exam then. So what do you guys think? Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 05:23, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@GA Cup judges: Hey everyone - sorry for seeing this like a month later. I'm thinking 2018 and possibly community input before then to possibly change up the structure of the GA Cup: does that sound reasonable? MrWooHoo (T • C) 13:15, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
