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

Entry: Snowflakes ~ Crystals of Ice - A19731693
Author: EMFSail - U7065736

A brief introduction to snowflakes, their formation and growth.

What a great little read! It's informative, but not full of jargon. Nice job

You might like to look through the Edited Guide for possible Entries to link to that relate to snow such as building a snowman, or rolling in it.

In fact that might be something to consider putting into the Entry - just 'what' is snow's appeal? But also, why do some people hate it?

Hopefully you'll get a few more opinions and ideas from other Peer Reviewers soon

Hi Matt, this could be a while, EMF told me he'd be offline for a couple of weeks now : http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/brunel/F127405?thread=3935478

That's a shame, but doesn't mean people still can't comment on the content Would hate to discourage a potential new writer for the EG, especially when it's at such a low ebb.

No, certainly not, I only posted this to explain why the author will probably not react to any comments.

Some of this information appears here: A8412798 as this is already edited, it takes precedence

However, that never stops there being more than one Entry about the same thing from being in the Guide, and again shouldn't discourage EMFSail from altering their Entry a little to have a different take on the subject matter.

As said, the last thing we need do is put potential writers off with the EG at such a low ebb.

I'm with Matt here. Firtsly, this entry is different enough from BigAl's to stand on its own, imo, and secondly, EMF got in touch with BA and posted him the link, asking for his opinion etc, and there were no complaints.

'tell you the truth, I haven't got around to reading it yet .

However, when I first joined the hootoo, Gnomon vetoed my entry on Categorised Mnemonics A2786321,from entering the EG due to A765978

A765975

Sorry for you.

I sometimes start writing and only remember to look for an EG later.

Well, I was aware of the other one, but thought mine was cmpletely different because it took a different approapch

That's unfortunate, and a trifle presumptious of an older contributor. Something can always be rewritten to take an different angle.

Using EMF's Entry here, we can see there are similarities in information between this nad the preserving snowflakes Entry, however, Big Al's Entry is about '{reservig Snowflakes'. With a little rewriting, this Entry could be a fun but informative one on Snow itself, much as I wrote one about Rain.

Another case in point for two entries on the same subject is the two on Australia. One is entitled Australia - a Cultural Perspective, one just Australia. There is some repetition between the two Entries but they are written in an entirely different manner with entirely different information contained within.

Please don't discount someone's writing straight away because there is already a similar entry in the EG. It's counter-productive in my eyes

So, what are your feelings about this entry then? Have you managed to read it now?

'fraid not - but I'll definitely gert around to it this evening (I'm just coming to the convos sporadically in between such activities as cooking grandson's lunch, visiting the loo, eating a picnic in the garden with Mrs BA etc etc.

No need to hurry.

ooo! Nice enough weather where you are for a garden picnic? too overcast here unfortunately

<> I wasn't discounting the entry, Matt. I was merely pointing out that there was some repetition which should be removed from this entry, in order for them to be different. I've written several entries on the same subject, so I do know the way to go about things

The Peer Review page says:
Important Notes

Before you put an entry into Peer Review, please make sure the following apply, or you may find your entry moved to a more suitable Review Forum:

**Check that there is not already an entry on this subject in the Edited Guide. You can do this by Searching the Guide.**

I am sure this entry can stand alone, it just needs to be different from Big Al's.

I've looked at both Entries now, and I don't think this one shows excessive repetition. This Entry is about how snowflakes form, so has to be inclusive of all the details in order to be cohesive. My Entry was about preserving snowflakes and it had to have a little info on how snowflakes formt, also to be cohesive/coherent. However, I deliberately glossed over much of the detail in m Entry.

'In order for the sublime condensation process to take place' > sublimation to take place' .

However, I would be grteful if you could work in a link to my Entry on 'Preserving Snowflakes'.

Oh for heavens sake, why the tall poppy syndrome?

Just let's let snow!

*throws @ GB*