h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Hi Gnomon,

I don't know if you've been following it, but we've been having discussions on the perceived lack of quality in Peer Review, in the unofficial PR discussion forum. If you feel inclined I'd very much appreciate your input. For one thing, you've experienced PR more than anyone else.

The first thread was an open discussion about what's wrong. It's at F3719964?thread=5482356 This one's largely run its course now, but it's well worth reading.

The second thread (which I started this morning) is inviting anyone to suggest actions we can take to improve things: F3719964?thread=5500615

I've had a good response so far, but I'd value your suggestions too, of course. I intend to leave the thread running for a few days and then I'll try to collate them and get some consensus going about which ones are best to take forward.

Hope to see you there!

Icy

I'll try and have a read of those later today. I haven't been in Peer Review in the last month or so, so I haven't noticed any lack of quality.

Hi Icy. In a conversation in Skype, I explained my idea of the 5 Guide Editors to Lanzababy:

Lanzababy - in charge of scouts
Gnomon - in charge of subeditors
Dmitri - in charge of the Post
Solnushka - in charge of Create
Icy, he tell it like it is, and don't take no shit from nobody.

Lanza wants this to be your official title and she's going around telling everyone.

You've stitched me up like a kipper, as they say in these parts.

Icy,

I've been doing the final polishing on A87709666 STV - the Single Transferable Vote. It was sub-edited by Bel, but I know she found it very confusing. I'm not happy with it as it stands. In particular, the section "The Election is Here" is a minefield.

I've rewritten this section slightly in this version: A948206

Would you mind checking that the "It's the Election" section in this (which I've coloured purple to prevent you looking at it in Goo) is reasonably easy to understand?

G

Good grief, this is confusing, and I'm not sure whether it's currently good enough to publish, without author clarification. These observations refer to your version:


I think you should say something about the distribution used in stage 2. Are the spare votes allocated proportionally to Mouse and Hoggy?

-> Probably the worst cop-out I've ever read. WHY are only two needed?!!!

-> least number of votes

-> stage 3 is finished

-> he is elected as the second representative (or 'successful candidate')

In stage 4, you say yet this isn't true. Only two of Hoggy's votes had Prof as second preference. The other two had Hoggy himself as second preference, yet all four were transferred to Prof. I'm confused as to why third preference didn't kick in here, but the author should really answer this one.

-> so is the third and final candidate elected

I would strongly urge you to drop the silly h2g2 names and use some bland surnames instead (maybe those of footballers or authors or something). The h2g2 names are very distracting when you're trying to understand this complex system.

No they didn't. Their role ended after they left the voting booth. Maybe say 'and then her voters' second choices came into play' or something.

-> Taff was elected ...

I think this is far too strong. I would expect this effect to work only in a few situations. I certainly wouldn't describe it as 'an effective way'.


Hope this helps!

The author is far to close to this subject to see what he's written. I'm too close too, in that all the elections I've ever voted in have been STV and I'm very familiar with how it works. Not sure what to do here, but I certainly don't think this is ready for publication in either my or Nosebagbadger's form.

Maybe ask Dmitri to take a look, in that case? I'd be a lot happier if it addressed the 1st, 2nd and 6th points I raised above.

Can you have a look at Sol's latest version of the Blini entry:

A42198230

This is after sub-editing by Lanza, tidying by myself and then rewriting by Sol.

I think it is ready to go. What do you think?

- This is the only first-person reference in the document, apart from the "my mother-in-law" bit later (and in the footnote). These look a little odd as a result.

We could possibly say "there is a dark suspicion that..." and "the author's mother-in-law".

Other than that, it seems fine.

Icy

Document? I meant entry (Work's getting on top of me today)

Icy, do you want me to take back The Fleets of the Roman Navy and give it to another sub-editor, or would you prefer to finish it yourself?

If I'm taking it back, can you give me an indication of how much work you've already done on it:

1. I hardly touched it, your honour
2. A good day's work
3. I've sweated blood over this entry

I'll decide based on this how to credit you.

Yes, please take it back. The answer is 3, followed by 1. I suggest someone starts again from scratch, to be honest.

I might do it myself and give you the credit.

No, I've hardly scratched the surface of what needs doing, to be honest. I suggest the whole introduction is thrown away and rewritten after the rest of it has been corrected. It just doesn't hang together at all.

Understood

I notice that the entry was picked by the BBC rather than by the current team. It's not up to our standards so it should not have been picked. I'm seriously considering just handing it back to Bob and tell him to keep working on it until it is capable of being sub-edited.

Hi Icy. I hope your job prospects are working out OK.

Can you do a quick read of an entry for me?

frleon put an entry into Peer Review on Dragon Curves, and I've had to do extensive rewriting on it. Can you let me know that it makes sense?

A87760452

It's OK, but I don't like the opening section. Some suggestions:



It may be clearer to say 'turning left or right' here.



This isn't clear because we don't say what the iterations are of. Clearly it's the number of turns in some shape or form.



Can we say a line with an infinite number of turns is fractal?



Is 'approximate' better than 'approach' here?


Hope this helps!

Thanks, Icy. I'll try and work those comments in tomorrow.