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

Entry: Bosham to Lincoln: - A Journey Through Roman Britain - A27450713
Author: Bob Stafford. ACE Join The h2g2 Book Club @ A20154070 (Keeper of The Treacle Shadow) - U3151547

Please comment

Hi Bob,
Surprised this hasn't had any comments.

Where you have:- Roman name:, Translation:, Condition:,
I would use either bullet points or italics rather than sub-header format.
-------------------------------------------------------------

DEO IOM IN HONOREM DOMVS DIVINAE SACRVM
The God Jupiter Best and Greatest
There were also temple dedications to Neptune and Minerva.

May look better as a blockquote?

--------------------------------------------------------------
Lincoln's main deities were

DEO MARTI - The God Mars

DEO MERCVRESIVM - The God Mercury

Again, may look better in a blockquote?

---------------------------------------------------------------
And finally, my usual gripe, too many footnotes for my liking.


ST.

The Roman Name, Translation, Condition formats are not subheaders. They're sub-subheaders, and this format has already been agreed and used in at least four of Bob's Roman Road entries.

ST thank you ou were right they were not quite the same as the others, they are now thogh but the format has bes ste in other entries and unless the ed's want them alterse best leave them alone.

Thank you for the interest and as always it is helpful , have you anyother points.

Bob.

Learn summat new all the while here, not heard of sub-sub-headers before.

No more comments Bob, it was a good read, as usual with your work, very detailed.


ST.

Sub-sub-headers are done using and .

thanks for that Gnomon, noted for future reference.



ST.

Anymore comments please

Wait a sec...what's the difference between this entry and A29321435?

Hi laconian
blowedifiknow I don’t know its not on my entry list. ST started the ball rolling again I had just left this in awaiting its turn. I have had no conversation for ages.

I had pulled the oiginal for a re-write and put it back as A27450713

I have had no contact with Wilma regarding it either and there has been no contribution from any other researcher. Did it end up in flea market somehow??? Its not credited on Wilma’s list

I have had no communication with anybody for ages on this entered on 21/11/07 perhaps skankyrich or Wilma can throw some light on this???

Wierd

Sorry I confused myself you are right this is the correct one.. the apperance of wilma has thrown me, sorry she did not contribute.

ST's comments were relevent though

Bob,

You created A25128489 and submit it Peer Review on 7-Aug-2007 (F7838276?thread=4449237). You seem to have made a copy of it and submit that to Peer Review too, four weeks ago, which would be some time in November. The original was picked two weeks ago (see posting 67 of that conversation) and was passed on to Wilma to sub-edit.

After she had done some work on it, she had to hand it back due to lack of time, and Skankyrich took over.

I don't know why you put the same entry into Peer Review twice, but one of the copies had been picked and edited so you should withdraw the other one.

If there are any details of the entry which is being edited that you want to change, you should talk to Skankyrich.

G

I see Skankyrich will know what to do sorry about the confusion I will leave everything to him

Are you going to remove this from Peer Review and contact Skankyrich, then?

oops, sorry if I've dropped a clanger here. I thought it was unusual for one of Bob's articles to sit so long without a single comment. I didn't see or know about a 'duplicate' already having been 'processed' so to speak.


ST.

It wasn't you that dropped the clanger, ST.

Yes ST my clanger, I lost the plot on this everyone.

out of PR now it was a duplicate apparantly

I will post a message to Skankyrich

You bit eedjit. Honestly, some people are TOO keen altogether.