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

LOL! In a world-wide arena, we generally leave the sheep to the New Zealanders. (Even us here in GoatCounty. )

Thanks for the review.

Pretty good stuff. The best part about this entry is the way you list the common traits at the beginning, and then list specifics for each type and each trait. This makes it enjoyable to read.

You may wish to rethink your opening sentence - it kind of mirrors Douglas Adams's style, which I've heard is how NOT to get an article accepted. Not that it should prevent this from being accepted, but it might get edited out first. You may want to go with more direct geography.....besides, the humor in the rest of the article works well.

Incidentally, I've fallen prey to the same temptation (writting like Adams). I should really go back and edit some of my own stuff.

If you are worried about negative reaction to your descriptions (such as "semi-humanoid"), you could go ahead and point out in the article that you consider yourself one of the species.

Score: 6.5 or 7. I can't decide. Call it a 6.75.

Mirror Douglas Adams? I'm flattered! (Didn't have any idea... If folks around here knew how long it had been since I read any of the h2g2 books (or any others) I'd probably be kicked out on my ear! )

Thank you.

Naturally, the day after posting my mirroring Adams comment, h2g2 goes and accepts my article that i thought was guilty of the same thing. Shows you what I know......

Congratulations!

Mind telling me which one so I can review what it's okay to do?

Okay... I hope this isn't cheating, but I made some minor formatting changes and one minor content change (adjusting the semi-humanoid thing), but put these on http://www.h2g2.com/P149852 rather than directly update the page so you can compare the two and let me know which you prefer.

I think the first format is better than the new one. I've never been a big fan of changing types in the middle of a piece. A little uniformity just makes it easier on the eyes.

A second read has yielded the discovery of a grammatical error that apparently escaped me the first time I read it, but no one else has caught it, either, so I'm okay with it. The first bullet on stumpjumpers has the word "dredges" where you mean to say "dregs." For a while I wondered if dredges was not also acceptable, but a Merriam Webster look up told me differently.

Anony: the article i was referring to is Ice Hockey

http://www.h2g2.com/A49510

It isn't exactly done in Adams-style, but I felt like I was trying for that when I wrote it. Don't know how it got in.....

I like the new Hillbilly enough to raise your score to a 7, without hesitation. The footnote works well. Normally I would agree with GargleBlaster regarding the format of the article, but since I have another guide entry that was done the exact same way, I can't argue with it. (I didn't write it that way, it was edited that way)

Ice Hockey! That reminds me... I wonder if anyone has done Air Hockey yet.

Gargle: Thanks for the grammar pointer. I don't think steam ships work well there.

As for the format... I changed to that for Dancing Tree, who had graciously suggested that type for my Mudpies page. Gargle: I agree with you, though, about the change mid-way. I didn't like that either, so I'm going to give it one more little tweak. See if that fixes things for you.

OK Anonymouse. You wanted comment, well here it is (comments in square brackets “[ ]” within copied text)! It’s a funny article, and very concise, but needs a little more, I think! I was trying to avoid commenting on others' articles because I didn't think it was fair to comment on the work of people with whom I'm competing. This is probably not a real good reason, but it got me out of a lot of work...!

A semi-humanoid species common to the eastern edge of the verticle [s/p: vertical] midsection [mid-section?] of a continent known as North America on the planet known as Earth. Though originating in the area known as "Head for the hills!" the species has spread and can now be found almost anywhere [where is “almost anywhere”? I don’t think there are any here (Australia) for example – it would be hard to have a house full of guns in a place where they are illegal!]. They [grammatical error: you’re still speaking about “the species”, which would suggest “it”. You might have to rephrase…] tend to flock together in family units.
Commonly identified by the following traits:
 More appliances in the yard than the kitchen
 Vehicles dotting the back yard
 Most located on cement blocks
 All have gun racks in back window
 Favourite china is the spittoon

There are three distinct varieties:
 Mountain Williams
 These are considered the elite in hillbilly society.
 Appliances in yard organized by size
 Spittoon is goldtone-plated
 Vehicles are new (1956-1972)
 Hill Billy
 Most common variety: The middle class
 Pickups have AM radios
 Spittoon is a coffee can
 Appliances include an ice-box
 Stump Jumpers
 These are considered the dredges [second GargleBlaster’s observation about this one…] of hillbilly society... The lowest of the low.
 Pickups have no beds
 Spittoon is beer can
 Most modern appliance is an old washboard

This is where to put “a little more” - I would suggest that some summary comment is added: this would round out the article, make it more readable, more informative and possibly funnier!

Regards,

H.

Hypodude: this is a competition? What do we win?

Nothing except renown, GargleB, nothing except renown. Calling it a "competition" is just my way of saying I'm too lazy to be involved!

If this was a competition, I would have posted much lower scores, thus increasing my own chance to win if i get an article involved.

Competition? Uhm... I don't see this as a competition. The editors will accept those articles that they deem appropriate for the guide, regardless of what happens here. The whole point is to get input and ideas to increase -every- article's chances to be accepted. Ideally every article submitted to the fun runs will be accepted. (Too bad we don't live in an ideal world. )

That being said... Hypo: Thank you. That's exactly the kind of input we need.  You caught things nobody else did, and I appreciate your (and everyone's) efforts.

As usual, I've made the changes in http://www.h2g2.com/P149852 ... I'm still looking for a more... erm... exciting? ... well, more -something- heading for that first section. Ideas appreciated. I've left a pointer to this page to the editors, as well... just in case they get round to peeking at it before the fun run is over. I'll also be making the grammatical changes to the original.. soon, I pwomise!

Oh... Just one more note, I'm still thinking on that summary thing and your problems with the gun/law conflict. I think I might combine this, but I'll have to give some thought to just how.

Somewhere there was a thread discussing various countries' versions of Hillbillies, but I can't find it as yet... I know Gypsies were mentioned, and I believe someone said AU's version were known as something like "outback bums" ?? Considering the terminology differences between our countries, that may well have been a bit... erm... *ahem*

Hahaha. I'm chuckling because I'm part hillbilly. I liked the "Mountain Williams", a lot but didn't so much like the reference to "planet Earth". It sounded a bit...given. Other than that I cacked myself. Perhaps you could add a footnote to the effect that the hillbilly is closely related to the 'Redneck'.

I'd give it 8.5 fingers on each hand

Ah.. hillbillies and rednecks.. Commonly mistaken as related, but actually quite different.

(Though some hillbillies are indeed rednecks, and some rednecks are indeed hillbillies. )

I'm not overly keen on the formatting either, despite what I said earlier. I did a draft of the article in a less bulletted structure, as I described further up this thread. I still worry slightly about the vaguely insulting nature of some of this, but I have dulled most of those elements to allow them to be taken in jest. As least I hope I have ...

(PS: this isn't proofed, or spell checked)

===
Hillbillies are common to the eatern edge of the USA, but can now be found almost anywhere on Earth in various forms. Members of this species tend to flock together in family units and are more than familiar with the phrase "Head for the hills!"

Hillbillies can be commonly identified via several unique traits. They tend to have more appliances in their yards than in their homes, most of which are in a distinct state of disrepair. Most have gun racks in the back window (a visual warning in case you were thinking of stealing one of their broken appliances), and most favour the spittoon as their favorite piece of china.

Class variations also exist - "Mountain Williams" are considered the elite of hillbilly society. Their appliances are actually organised (by size), their spittoons are often goldtone-plated, or at least not covered in rust, and their vehicles are new, or at least post 1956.

The typical hillbilly described at the start of this article is considered the "middle-class" variety. Their pick-ups have AM radios, their spittoon is a coffee cup, and their appliances sometiemes include an ice-box.

"Stump Jumpers" are seen as the dregs of hillbilly socirety. Their pick-ups have no beds, the spittoon is a beer can, or anything else within spitting distance, and their most modern appliance is an old washboard.
===

Hmmm... I think you've misunderstood some of the points. (Gun racks in back windows were refering to back windows of the vehicles in the yard, and the "new" vehicles -are- circa 1956 ) ... Other than that.. about the bullets. I left them there as the concensus seemed to be that it made for easier reading and an organized look, which is what I was aiming for... kind of carrying the generalized points through the heirarchy, so the different nuances stood out.

*nibbles tail nervously* ... Now I'm all confuzzled... Should I? shouldn't I? Hmmmm...

Well, as I know very little about the subject, it's not surprising that I didn't "get" some of the points It was also written very quickly - as I said this *wasn't* proofed at all!

However, I think bulleted stuff is less likely to gain attention, apart from in a very immediate sense - and it reduces a potentially intriguing and quite fun article to a list, which isn't very interesting to -read- and is very easy to gloss over. Also, even though it's obviously *not* the case here, bulleted stuff sometimes makes out that the author couldn't be bothered to write the article out in a more constructed manner. Maybe. I don't know - this is just my 2p, and obviously you are free to do whatever you want with your article! If the concensus seems to be bullets then go with that. Just make sure you fuilly consider all the alternatives first.

BTW, confuzzled - nice word!