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

An excellent piece of work

One little thing.

In DeltaE = hv, v is the *freqency* of the EM radiation, not the velocity (which is c, the speed of light of course)

(Point 4 in the Rutherford-Bohr model)

Aside from that though, wonderful! And I like the poem at the end, very nice

Oops for that; I'll inform EF.

(Some Researchers didn't like the poem )

Philistines

I, on the other hand, appreciate both the entry and the poem (it was credited, was it not?).

I don't want to detract from the overall accuracy of the entry, but I'm concerned about the assumption in it opening paragraph:
[From a practical point of view, everything in the universe is made of atoms. There are atoms in the air and in anything you can see or feel. Essentially, anything large enough to count as 'substance' of any kind is made up of atoms. Atoms are the smallest parts that 'substance' can be broken down into by chemical reactions.]

It inadvertently ignores that the reason we can see substances composed of atoms is result of the existence of photons which are not made of atoms. This also leads to the realisation that other energies are being ignored.

It also ignores prevailing measurments that suggests that upwards of 70% of the universe's 'stuff' is made of something called 'Dark Matter', and that we have not yet identified it's composition or examined it's structure.

On more of a precision angle, IMHO, the last sentence of the paragraph should identify atoms as the smallest bit of a matter that represents an element.

My son once had his answer to 'what is the smallest unit of matter' marked wrong by a classmate because he did not answer 'atom'. His answer was 'quark' which the teacher decided was an excellent answer after my son pointed out that if the teacher had wanted the smallest unit of matter that represents an element, he could have just asked the more precise question.

That's my boy.

Ah yes, the poem was indeed credited.

I had an additional, if similarly mild, concern in the portion on Isotopes.

[Now consider hydrogen. This exists as three isotopes: 1H (protium), 2H (deuterium) and 3H (tritium). The most abundant isotope is protium (1H), and this makes up 99% of the natural hydrogen on earth. It has one proton and no neutrons and so its relative atomic mass is 1 (from the table above).]

Since the discussion point is the whole isotope, and not merely the nucleus, the last sentence should probably finish: '... so its relative atomic mass is *effectively* 1'. It would really be 1.000541712 because of the additional mass of the electron orbiting it.

Feel free to ignore this, unless you, to, feel it is important.

Oops, Sorry about this. me.

I meant to mention that the Face-Centred Crystal (FCC) Model was also referred to as the Face-Centred Cubic Model. Either an explanation or consistency in nomenclature would be of help to the casual reader. (as if this sort of entry gets 'casual readers'

I've noted your points Fords

I might take a deeper look at the weekend when I've more time, as I'm s'posed to be preparing myseself (unsuccessfully!) for the start of term right now. (I keep allowing myself to get distracted with hootoo projects

Understood, BigAl. I know how you feel; yet, I keep coming around to spend some of my limited free time on the hootoo experience.

Why was this yikesed? It seems a bit embarrassing to have an Edited entry moderated (not to mention one I subbed!).

Dunno. Didn't know it had been. (Wouldn't it be polite to leave a message on an author's PS to explain why?)

Furthermore, if there was anything seriously wrong with it, then this should've been picked up in PR - that's what PR is for. It should be impossible to 'yikes'something that's in the EG. IMO

Really? Yikesed?!

It certainly didn't seem that controversial, and I won't believe that it was a copyright infringement issue. I don't even remember any first-person references, and that's certainly no reason for yikesing.




Don't worry too much, B/A. Perhaps it's a spot-check sort of thing to see if we're paying attention. No matter what it was (is it April 1st yet?), I'm certain it will be back on track shortly. Maybe someone just hit the wrong button when they meant to change the status to Recommended?!

Hmm. Perhaps

Did you get an email, BigAl? That's usually how they deal with moderation issues.

If someone had an issue, they really should have taken it up in PR.

Actually... *I* should have gotten an email, I think, since it says 'edited by' me. But I didn't.

No, I didn't either. I think it's extremely rude and shouldn't be allowed - unless it was a mistake as suggested above

I think I'll post to Editorial Feedback, though the italics won't notice it until Monday. I'd like to get some rationale.

F47997?thread=1893775

emr