Creating a "signpost user interface" can help to uncover directions to take in digital contexts as out of sight is out of mind. Having things sit in your way within one's note taking workflow can remind them to either link things, or move in particular directions for discovering new avenues of thought.

Example: it would be interesting if Jerry's The Brain would have links directly to material in Flancian's Agora to remind him to search or find relevant material there. This could help with combinatorial creativity with inputs from others, though it needs to be narrow so as not to result in rabbit holes which draw away attention.

Link to: https://hypothes.is/a/iQvo7l1zEe6dZ5_9d9rrVw

Jerry Michalski says that The Brain provides him with a "neighborhood perspective" of ideas when he reduces the external link number for his graph down to 1.

This is similar to Nicholas Luhmann's zettelkasten which provided neighborhoods of related notes based on distance from any particular note.

Also similar to oral cultures who relied on movement through their environment for encoding memories and later remembering them. [I'll use the tag "environmental memory" to track this until a better name comes along.]

Are you one of them? Can you clarify your relationship to the competition? Maybe we should run an introductory "Wugapodes is..." statement next to your byline.

"anecdotal evidence suggests it does"?

"morale"

A link or a date might be helpful; you've presented enough data, except for this one piece, for the reader to take a look at themselves.

Important point. Would be clearer if not couched in double-negative.

"impact", so as not to repeat "effective" within sentence?

This is "outcomes" of what? Of the GA Cup? Unclear. Better section title?

Ah, I see. Yes, this point is worth making. I think you should reduce the detail in the preceding text, though. You're not making a strong argument here, so the data and half-arguments may come across as noise.

You're suggesting, but not clearly asserting, that pass rate is a proper measure of review quality. It's plausible, but I'm not convinced.

This article doesn't address this. Would be nice if you could reference some kind of evidence, maybe a quote from a frequent GA reviewer?

delete, redundant of "review quality" earlier in sentence

Is it so surprising, though? Wouldn't serious competitors tend to hold off on reviews they're planning to do, until the competition begins, to increase their chances at a trophy?

add "...than it would otherwise"

includes

I don't quite understand what this means -- important that this be clear, if it introduces an entire section.

tighten? this phrase jangles, might be a personal pet peeve

What an excellent suggestion.

Maybe more explicit, like "if my hypothesis is correct"

I understand what you're saying, but for an audience of non-statisticians I might say "makes intuitive sense"

Outstanding! Love this.

You have two overlapping ideas in this paragraph: two things can coincide/correlate, but leave open a question of causation. If your point is about causation, you can't use that to justify denying that correlation exists. Two paragraphs, one on each?

From looking at the chart, it seems to be largely true...I'm a bit confused.

Earlier in the piece (not exactly sure where), I'd like to have read something explicitly stating the important differences between the backlog drives and the GA Cup. In what respects are the GA Cup more substantial? Perhaps in the same paragraph summarizing Figureskatingfan's message?

Fantastic graphic

The quote that follows is more than a mere "statement" -- it's an essay of its own! This would be MUCH better as a 2-4 sentence paraphrase. Don't need many of the specifics in here.

? Are you stating that you and Figureskatingfan are the two creators of GA Cup? If so, needs to be more direct. If not, what do you mean?

There's no subject who is facing anything; change to "With..." (or rewrite sentence with a subject)

should be "more than"

This needs to be more specific. Are you considering all GA Cups? All GA backlog drives on enwp? Other languages?

should be "needing review"

Even as an experienced Wikipedian, I have a hard time grasping how this supports the claim before the statement. Can you draw out the connection a bit more -- or else remove the evidence? I don't think it's necessary to your point.

We try to avoid footnotes in the SP -- if there are ways to incorporate these in the main text, let's do that.

Let's include a nav box for relevant past SP coverage. See this search: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Search?search=%22good+article%22&prefix=Wikipedia%3AWikipedia+Signpost%2F20&fulltext=Search+all+articles&fulltext=Search&searchToken=ecg5l0m2ox7yrytcirfcmqwum

Since the piece is so focused on how the GA Cup is impacting the backlog overall, can you say a few words in this paragraph to assert that reducing the backlog was part of the original point of the GA Cup? (assuming that's true, of course)

This doesn't seem like quite the right phrase. Perhaps "sustain after the conclusion of the competition"?

I'd like to see stronger framing here -- you've made a solid point, it deserves more assertive presentation.

Excellent point. Very glad you cover this.

This is a bit confusing -- I thought this paragraph was going to be looking at GA outside the context of the competition. I think I see the point you're getting at, but it should be more explicit.

spell out

This article just got much more interesting! But, you should tease this point in the first couple sentences (perhaps the headline/subhead) or you may lose readers.

simpler alternative: "the backlog has shrunk during the competition"

insert (GA)

Subject of sentence is GA Cup, but not stated. Replace this phrase with "GA Cup awards participants..."

insert "competition" or "contest"

More specific: "For each of the annual competitions" or "for each GAWC"

This claim is a little too bold, given the evidence presented. Were other language Wikipedias considered, or other backlogs (like A or FA)? If this is limited to GA on enwp, state that more explicitly. Or if there is somebody familiar who could supply a quote, that's another way to get at it.

I don't entirely follow this -- possible to explain more clearly? Use 2 or 3 sentences instead of 1? (Or else, don't get into this much detail -- maybe not necessary)

Specify date?

delete

The fact that it needs review doesn't itself create a backlog -- slight rephrase? New sentence?

How so? FA and A are both typically considered "above" GA, no? Less specific word?