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

Surely this is not allowed - wholesale copying (even if admitted) of a patient information leaflet!

glutenfreetuna, if you feel this is not approriate, there is a yikes button

glutenfreetuna - this is an entry to help reassure people who received the same letter as the patient (me) and author (also me).

The parts which were deemed unable to copy (the FAQ's) were removed while the entry was in Peer Review.

In the PR thread, Dr Matt U739774 said:
I've read this from time to time through its journey in PR, and I think that now all the pamphlet vs personal experience stuff appears to be cleared up, it's a great intro to the test coupled with an idea of what ACTUALLy happens (which you can't get from a brochure).

Now, if only I were a scout...

I invite you to read the entire thread to reassure you that this entry has been deemed worthy of being in the Edited Guide, recommended by a Scout and accepted by the h2g2 Editors.
F2173292?thread=1774720

Galaxy Babe

Oh I agree that its been given the OK- I just think its a poor reflection on the standard of the Guide that certain entries don't get anywhere when substandard stuff like this gets the nod. The excuse that this is for reassuring people doesn't wash - as presumably most trusts have the same leaflet (often published and distibuted courtesy of heart charities)?

When I had this scan I didn't know anybody who had already had it done, nor did I know what to expect.

This entry not only takes you through the process but gives a personal perspective from a lay person who hasn't a clue what's going on or going to happen.

It's possible my articles don't meet your criteria of "expert knowledge" but doctors don't always have time to explain the process and most people aren't savvy to the medical jargon.

It's a mistake on your part to call my entry "substandard" when I am the one willing to go through the process of Peer Review and get my articles accepted for Edited status.

Gluetenfreetuna: I actually work in a department that performs these scans. All the information from the information leaflet is basicly the same where ever you get it from. Most centres produce there own, I have never heard of a heart charity take any notice of this particulare test.
As for being a substandard I think GB has done a serling job compiling this and explaining a very complicated scan in a clear and concise way. If you read the PR thread you will see that much discussion was had over the issue of plagiarism. An the ovrwelming opinion was that a small amount of what could be called plagiarism was justified by the quality of the article. And what better research could you want for such a article than actually experiencing it.

What constitutes plagiarism, exactly? Stating someone else's ideas or wording as your own, I beleive. The ideas are not new - they merely express a standard procedure. Furthermore, I can attest to the fact that many words were changed along the way. If it's plagiarism, it's a very very mild form. Fine of $50. Worth it for the many people who could benefit from such an entry.