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

Entry: Uranus - A12186092
Author: shagbark - U170775

planetary entries get out of date. Here is my attempt to bring this up to date.

The author of the original article is still active in h2g2.
hopefully she will let us know if there is something she wants in the official edited entry.
I am hopeful that my article on William Herschel will become part of the EG soon so we can link to it from this article.

I didn't understand the ordering of the moons...

Could you make them by year discovered?

Right now they seem a bit scattered.

I can put this back in my spreadsheet and rearange them.
the second column is what I had been sorting on starting with the smallest and going to the largeset. If you prefer chronological OK.

Just so everyone understands- the article this would replace is A396713

it will be tommorrow before I get around to straightening this out. bear with me please.

As promised the moons are now in chronological order- shagbark

also in the facts column- stating the sidereal period in days created some confusion as to whether we were talking Uranian days or earth days.
I have solved that by making it list in years instead.

Note references in margin- these are new

Hiya, I'm on holiday this week and haven't had much 'net access, so apologies for being slow to get to this thread!

I like what you've done

The few things I'd change on the new version are:
1. First line - you got rid of saying it's a gas giant, which, Imo, leaves that sentence unbalanced. I know it's repeated later on, but can that go back?

2. "As d2k progressed..." - I've never heard it called that before! Is this a standard way of refering to this decade? I've not seen it on the edited guide before, but then again I've not been reading much recently. There's something about that sentence that seems a little awkward to me, maybe because we're still in this decade but it refers to it in the past tense.

3. You could put a footnote to describe what adaptive optics is. Although actually, I think it would merit it's own entry...

4. In the Rings and Satellites section, instead of "At the time this article was updated" you could have "As of 2006", which would avoid the extra footnote (although detractors may point out it is a little wikepedian )

Oh yeah, and you also didn't capitalise Voyager 2 once in the planet section (nitpicky? moi? )

Other than that, great job It's good to see stuff being updated, it was such a long time since I originally wrote this!

d2k is my own contribution to the english language.
Just as y2k was the first year of this millenia so is d2k the first decade. this avoids using terms like " the naughts" or this decade
(which we can't use anyway because articles are supposed to be time neutral not saying things like during the past year.)
I can make the other changes you suggest and I am hoping to get a link to an article on William Herschel that is currently languishing in Peer Review.

'd2k' would certainly be edited out at the subbing stage, so you might as well change it to another, more standard term for the decade rather than have the change foisted upon you.

I'm sure there were people who also objected to the term y2k
and if the editor can think of a better name for the decade let him use it. In my mind this is the best term.
Meanwhile I just found a bbc link for Adaptive optics which is going into a footnote

And if the editors are going to object to things I would think they would object to the footnote on 'your anus' five years ago that might of passed muster but today? I doubt it.

lets see
first line...gas giant DONE
Voyager capitolized..Done
As of 2006 well, OK

Not bothered either way, shagbark, I was just pointing out the obvious to you Do whatever you like!

*unsubscribe*

the years go by as qyuickly as a wink
can you believe how many yea4rs this article has been in h2g2
If you go the same stretch to the next update it will be 2012 just thinking of it.

the years go by as quickly as a wink
If it is this long top the next update will that make it 2012
just thinking of it.

what do you think j'au are we ready for this to replace the oldarticle on Uranus? I'm happy with it if you are.

I'll hold off until we get the okay