Peer Review
| Edited Guide Writing Workshop
| Alternative Writing Workshop
Flea Market
| Updating an Approved Entry

Welcome to Peer Review, one of several Review Forums on h2g2. Peer Review is the part of h2g2 where you, the Community, help us to decide which Entries go into the Approved or Edited Guide¹.

Writing an Entry for Peer Review

Your Entry should follow the h2g2 Writing Guidelines. Essentially, this means it should be factual, informative and written clearly.

Researchers are much more likely to read and comment on an Entry if it's possible to read it in less than 10 minutes. It's usually difficult to adequately cover a topic in less than 250 words. If your Entry is a bit lengthy (1,200 words or more) then it's likely to need dividing into sections with headers. If it's very lengthy (2,500 words or more) then it's likely to need splitting into a series of Entries.

You should check that your chosen subject isn't already covered in the Edited Guide by searching h2g2².

Once you've submitted your Entry to Peer Review, it will stay there for at least seven days before a Scout can pick it. This allows time for other Researchers to make comments and suggestions for improvement.

• Remember we're talking about Planet Earth here. Explain anything that's peculiar to the part of it you're describing. If someone comments that they don't understand something you wrote, think about how you can describe it more clearly.

• If you disagree with a suggestion, explain why.

• If you agree with a suggestion, make the changes to your Entry.

Scouts will only pick Entries that are ready to be sent to the Sub-Editors for proofreading, so it's useful to point out when you've made any changes and are happy with your Entry as it stands. The time taken for an Entry to be picked varies hugely, so do be patient.

If you'd like to know about the next stage in the editorial process, check out What happens after my Entry has been Picked by a Scout?

Commenting in Peer Review

Before commenting on an Entry in Peer Review, you'll need to read the Entry. To do this, click on the title in the list at the bottom of this page.

Once you've read the Entry, don't click on 'Start a conversation' at the bottom of the Entry. Instead, click the 'Currently In: Peer Review' link on the right-hand side of the Entry. This will take you to the Peer Review comment thread, where you can add your comments by clicking 'Reply' to the last posting.

• If you like the Entry, say so! Everyone likes compliments. If you don't like it, try to make your comments specific.

• Edited Entries should be able to be read by h2g2's international audience. If you don't understand something in the Entry, don't be afraid to tactfully ask the author for an explanation.

• The Sub-Editors check Entries for typos etc so you shouldn't worry about grammar and spelling unless you are not able to understand something in the Entry as a result.

• If the Entry gets picked, pop back to the Peer Review thread and congratulate the author.

Peer Review Text 2011-2020

Peer Review
| Edited Guide Writing Workshop
| Alternative Writing Workshop
Flea Market
| Updating an Approved Entry

Welcome to Peer Review, one of several Review Forums on h2g2. Peer Review is the part of h2g2 where you, the Community, help us to decide which Entries go into the Approved version of the site. The Peer Review process has four main steps:

1. Write Your Entry - a Researcher writes an Entry that is suitable for the Edited Guide: the Approved version of h2g2.

2. Submit Your Entry - the Researcher submits their Entry to Peer Review.

3. Read Others' Comments - other Researchers comment on the Entry and help the author to improve it.

4. Get Accepted - the Entry is Picked by a Scout, accepted by the h2g2 Guide Editors and heads off for inclusion in the Approved version of the site.

Peer Review is not the place for Entries that are unfinished, works in progress, rants, fiction, one-liners, jokes or personal theories.

Writing an Entry

If you're writing an Entry for Peer Review, it needs to be suitable for inclusion in the Approved part of the site. You can be sure of this by following our Writing Guidelines. Essentially, this means it should be truly well written, factual and informative.

In particular Researchers are much more likely to read Entries and comment on them if it's possible to read them in one sitting. As a general guide it's usually difficult to adequately cover a topic in less than 250 words. If your Entry is getting a bit lengthy (1,200 words or more) then it is likely to need dividing into sections with headers. If it is very lengthy (2,500 words or more) then you will need to consider splitting it into a series of Entries.

If your entry doesn't fit the guidelines but you'd still like to submit it, the Alternative Writing Workshop is the best place for the job.

You should check that your chosen subject isn't already covered by an existing Approved Entry³. You can do this by searching h2g2. If you would like to update an existing Approved Entry, you'll need to follow the procedure for Updating an Approved Entry.

You should make sure that the Entry is, as far as you are concerned, finished. If you're looking for a few final comments on an Entry that you haven't quite finished, or you would like others to contribute to your unfinished Entry, you might want to submit it to the Writing Workshop. Alternatively, just keep working on it until you're done, then submit it to Peer Review.

Submitting an Entry to Peer Review

Before submitting an Entry, make sure it fulfils the above requirements. To put an entry into Peer Review, click on the SUBMIT FOR REVIEW link to the right-hand column of the Entry and follow the instructions, choosing 'Peer Review' from the drop-down menu. If you cannot find the SUBMIT FOR REVIEW link, check that the 'Not for Review' box (visible when working on the Entry) isn't ticked.

Approved Entries, Help Pages, Personal Spaces, Entries already in a Review Forum and entries labelled 'Not for Review' cannot be submitted. Also, we'd ask that you don't submit other Researchers' Entries unless you've got a good reason.

Once you've submitted your Entry to Peer Review, it will stay there for at least seven days before a Scout can pick it. This allows time for Researchers to make comments and for you to make any changes recommended. If it looks like you'll need to make major changes to your Entry, the best thing to do is to take it out of Peer Review and resubmit it when it's ready.

Commenting in Peer Review

Before commenting on an Entry in Peer Review, you'll need to read the entry. To do this, click on the title in the list at the bottom of this page.

Once you've read the Entry, don't click on START A CONVERSATION at the bottom of the entry. Instead, click the 'Currently In: Peer Review' link on the right-hand side of the Entry. This will take you to the Peer Review comment thread, where you can add your comments by clicking 'Reply' to the last posting.

Before you comment on an entry in Peer Review, consider the following points:

• Is it the author's first Entry? (You can check their Personal Space to find out). If so, be gentle in your criticism - if they're really going wrong you may wish to direct them to the Writing Guidelines. Remember, everyone wrote their first Entry once!

• Have you checked the comments other Researchers have made? If you have spotted a mistake or omission, it might already have been pointed out by someone else.

• If you like the Entry - say so! Everyone likes compliments.

• Simply posting 'I hated this, it's rubbish' doesn't give the author much of a clue what they may be doing wrong. If you don't like it, try to make your criticism specific.

• Wherever possible, try to help the Researcher get the grammar and spelling as accurate as possible. While we have volunteer Sub-editors who polish entries before publication, it never hurts to get the Entry as 'right' as possible early on. This will also help your chances of having the Entry Approved.

• Ask yourself if you actually understand the Entry. Approved Entries are aimed, in the main, at the educated layman, so if you didn't understand it, it may be a failing of the author. On the other hand, it might well be you, so don't be afraid to tactfully ask for an explanation.

• Try not to head off on tangents or drift away from discussion of the entry. If there's a burning need to debate anything other than the Entry, please start another Conversation elsewhere.

• Stay subscribed to the thread; once you've commented, keep an eye on what others are saying. It may be the start of an interesting Conversation.

• If the Entry gets picked – particularly if it is the author's first – pop back and congratulate the author.

Having Your Entry Accepted

Once your Entry has been in Peer Review for seven days, it can be Picked by a Scout for inclusion in the Approved Guide. Scouts will only pick Entries that have no outstanding corrections, so it's useful to point out when you've made any changes and are happy with your Entry as it stands. The time taken for an Entry to be picked varies hugely, so do be patient.

If you'd like to know about the next stage in the editorial process after a Scout has Picked your Entry, then check out What happens after my Entry has been Picked by a Scout?

.

.

As 2018 draws to a close, it provides an opportunity to look back on the year. We have seen some great Entries enter the Edited Guide on a huge variety of topics.

Places to visit have included: the Austrian Open Air Museum, Llangollen Railway in Wales, Chavasse Park in Liverpool, UK and Brading Roman Villa on the Isle of Wight. Local history has also proved popular. We have learned about: Babylon in Belshill, Shanklin Lift on the Isle of Wight, Birkenhead Hamilton Square railway station on the Wirral, and When the Mayor of Grimsby met Prince Makaroo.

People commemorated in the Guide this year include: mathematician Maryam Mirzakhani, forger Lee Israel and fashion designer Yves Saint Laurent. Entries about food are always useful in the Guide, and this year saw some tasty dishes make their way through the process, including Moroccan Vegetable Tagine and Apple and Quince Chutney.

Music and Literature have been well represented this year, so we have learned about things like The Beatles' White Album and The Hammond and Leslie Feud. The Philip K Dick-tionary is a handy reference work and we were introduced to the Rivers of London series of books. Various television series made their way into the Edited Guide. There have also been films galore, including Terminator Salvation, a film set in the dystopian, post-apocalyptic world of 2018.

And of course there have been plenty of Entries about unusual topics that are just perfect for the h2g2 Edited Guide, such as Talking Dolls, Red Dwarf's Guide to Human History and The History of Space Pranks.

Several Flea Market Rescues made their way from the depths of h2g2 to the Front Page thanks to dedicated Researchers nurturing them to Edited status. Such Entries included Guinan and Q from Star Trek and A Beginner's Guide to Curry.

Art

Not only have we seen great Entries about photography and art, but also the artwork on Entries has been superb, thanks to public domain images by NASA and others, plus the excellent work of all our artists and photographers. The images produced have ranged from fabulously hilarious to deeply poignant. Special thanks goes to digital wizard FWR. Notably illustrated Entries include Norovirus⁴, The Childe of Hale, The Love Story of Vernon and Irene Castle and the Astronauts and Cosmonauts Roll of Honour amongst many others.

Badges

We welcomed some new Researchers to the ranks of the Edited Guide: HG Gustwinger, LordDorkface, almoner99 and BobI.

We also awarded higher achievement badges - FWR gets a badge for 10 Solo Edited Entries, Tavaron da Quirm gets a badge for 50 Solo Edited Entries, and Dmitri Gheorgheni gets a badge for 175 Solo Edited Entries. Bluebottle gets a super shiny new golden badge for 400 Solo Edited Entries - an h2g2 record!

Well done to everyone for all your hard work.

If you haven't written anything for the Edited Guide yet, or it has been a long time since you last wrote for us, why not make 2019 the year you put pixels to screen?

In a vague connection with this month's Create Challenge about the inspiration of Douglas Adams and The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, we bring you interviews with three Researchers who have helped to build the Earth Edition of the Hitchhiker's Guide here on h2g2.com. We asked the question: 'Out of the Entries you have written, do you have any particular favourites?'

First is SashaQ, who has contributed 90 Solo Entries to the Edited Guide and is working towards the 100 Solo Entries badge.

Four Entries that I would class as favourites, as they captured (in quick succession) what I think of as my defining interests, are: John Deacon - Bass Guitarist of Queen, Count Sandor Vay - A Transgender Icon, Ada Lovelace - Mathematician and Computer Scientist and Christopher Nolan - Author and Disabled Person. I would also like to add The Evolution of the Dandies, because it was a pleasing challenge to research it and write it in a different style from my other Entries, and 'The Road to El Dorado' - the Film, that I dedicated to my partner as it is a film we would have enjoyed watching together.

Second is Dmitri Gheorgheni, who was awarded the 175 Solo Entries badge in 2018.

I have so many fond memories of the research behind most of these. But three stood out when you asked the question:

• Pittsburgh Sub Specie Aeternitatis
• Drinking Your Way Through the Apocalypse: The DIY Fallout Shelter Snack Bar
• Kurt Gerstein: God's Spy in the Devil's Uniform

I'm proud of the Pittsburgh entry because it takes a very long view of the subject. Also because the mayor of Pittsburgh's office has acknowledged its existence on Twitter.

The apocalypse entry is an example of how practical the Guide can be. It even has useful diagrams!

Finally, the Kurt Gerstein entry proves to doubters that my writing is not all about the snark. Some things need to be remembered.

And last but by no means least is Bluebottle, who is the first ever recipient of the 400 Solo Entries Badge!

I've narrowed it to 11, if that helps…?

• 1. Yaverland, Isle of Wight, UK - (March 14, 2000) – My first solo entry
• 159. Walking Hadrian's Wall - (February 6, 2012) – This marks a personal achievement and time spent with close friends.
• 191. 'Zulu' - the Film - (January 15, 2013) – I think I handled this potentially difficult film review well.
• 222. ORP Blyskawica and the Cowes Blitz - (March 1, 2013) – This subject has family connections as one of my grandfather's help build her and my other grandfather always said she saved his life.
• 236. 'Labyrinth' - The Film - (June 3, 2013) – Just 'cos of the 'Life lessons learnt from Labyrinth' section, which is a creed to live by.
• 269. Class Segregation and the Evolution of the British Railway Carriage - (March 10, 2014) – 'Cos at the end of the day the whole idea of comparing Britain's class system to railway carriages is unbelievably daft, yet somehow it makes sense.
• 273. 'The Island of Doctor Moreau' by HG Wells (May 28, 2014) – You can't beat the classics.
• 303. How Do You Sleep at Night with Copulating Insects - The Lennon/McCartney Lyrics War - (June 1, 2015) – It hopefully goes to show that anyone can interpret anything the way they most want to.
• 357. Brontosaurus! Post-Extinction Burial and Rebirth - (Jun 12, 2017) – I'm reclaiming the Brontosaurus through the medium of science.
• 377. Red Dwarf's Guide to Human History - (March 12, 2018) – Again, 'cos it is daft.
• 381. 'Horrible Histories' - the Television Series - (April 23, 2018) – This personifies time spent with my family and I think the good times shines through in the entry. (We watched 'Horrible Histories: Horrible Christmas' together yesterday).