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

Mort, I've had a go at the paragraphing now. Probably still not perfect!

Also, noticed a couple more typos on the way which I've corrected.

BIGAL

"Comet Hyakutake was first seen in January 1995 and was visible in March 1996. It has a period of 18000 years and was the brightest comet for 20 years."

Bit confused !

Does this mean it was first seen in 1995 via telescope in 1995 and visible from earth in 1996? Or that it was visible from 1995 to 1996 via telescope?

The brightest comet for 20 years - which 20 year period? Or do you mean that it was the brightest thing spotted for the 20 years since 1975?

(minor nitpick - 18000 should be written as 18,000)

I think I've sorted that now. Actually, when I went back to try and check the facts I found I couldn't find many. Plenty of photos but few facts. I am concerned about its period. I got the figure of 18000 yrs from a newspaper article which said it would "not return for another 18000 yrs".

However, when i TRIED TO RECHECK THIS ANOTHER SOURCE SAID IT "PREVIOUSLY PASSED OUR WAY 8600 YRS AGO". eRRATIC ORBIT?

oNE OF THE PROBLEMS IS A LACK OF CONSISTENCY IN SPELLING hYUKATAKE., the 'u' and the 'a' get transposed; this complicates searches somewhat.

(Sorry about change to capitals. Newish keyboard which (a) doen't have a light thaty flashes at me when I'm in capitals and
(b) Has slightly sticky/unresposive CAPS LOCK key.

Haven't had time to return/change it!

BIGAL

Just added an extra para about the very first comet ever recorded and 'broom star' comets.

I've nor replaced my keyboard!!!

BIGAL

Hi there! Interesting entry. My biggest comment would be that I, personally, feel the entry is too long -- it could easily be split up into 2 or 3 separate entries, which would make the whole quite a bit more readable.

Also, here are some pedantic observations of mine, as there are some changes that need to be made to bring this more in line with Edited Guide style:

* In Edited Guide entries, is only used to subdivide sections header by .

* In Edited Guide entries, we start out with an introduction paragraph or two before having the first . Along with this, there is usually text in between a and the first subsidiary underneath it.

* Furthermore, no punctuation or links in headers.

* Some of your link anchors appear to be bolded, but shouldn't be. In fact, bolding is overused in general in the entry.

* There are some confusing incomplete sentences, such as:

A 'black comet' was said to have preceded the Black Death in 1665 and.... another comet

* The quotations are also formatted a little oddly. As opposed to in the rest of the text, we usually use rather than within

Some good places to look for this kind of nitpicky info are <./>SubEditors-GuideML</.> and <./>SubEditors-Style</.>.


Mikey

Mikey, I'll have another look at this. It was the very first GE I ever wrote, hence the errors.

The "confusing half-sentences" are there to get different points onto different lines, because I originally had this section bullet-pointed; but somebody complained and said I shouldn't be using bullet points. (Paradoxically, the comments I was reading concerning somebofdy else's entry recently suggested that he did bullet-point it!)
At present, I don't know what this comment means,

"In Edited Guide entries, is only used to subdivide sections header by ".

However, it might become clear once I start to go throughi it.

As far as the Headers and Subheaders go, here is an example that might help:

Ideally, in Edited Guide entries, we have something like this:




Random text that serves as an introduction paragraph.

What I Did on My Summer Vacation

I didn't have actually have a summer vacation, but if I did, I might have done all sorts of cool things.

Places I Went

This section is a subdivision of "What I Did on My Summer Vacation", which is why a *sub*header is used.

People I Saw

This is another subdivision -- different than the one above, but still part of "What I Did on My Summer Vacation".

What I Pretended to Do, But Didn't Really

This isn't a subdivision of "What I Did on My Summer Vacation", so I've started a brand new section of the entry, with it's own header.



Does that help 'splain some?

Yes, it does. I'll have a look at it now.



<biggrin<

Well, I've made a start on revamping this. I've completyely changed the oprening para but, at present it only represents a flavour of what I want to say - I need to put it more eloquently.

I've also rearranged one of the paragraphs,

I've changed the title to 'Comets as Harbingers of Momentous Events 9rather than Catastrophic Events' to to able to include the 'Star of Bethlehem'.

I'll continue to look at this over this weekend but, if I'm not satisfied by then I'll pull it from PR for a spell whilst I work on it.

I remember reading this when you first submitted it to PR, and think that it is now greatly improved I do have a couple of comments, however:

- The short one-sentence paragraphs in the 'What are comets' section still read somewhat like a list. I think some quick rewording would allow one or two longer paragraphs, which would read and look better.
- The 'What are comets' section's header requires a question mark at the end.
- Typo, Hale-Bopp Section: "...ten times that of the average comet and seven tiimes larger than Halleys comet" - 'tiimes' and a possessive apostrophe needed in 'Halleys'.
- CATASTROPHIC EVENTS CAUSED BY COMETS (Chronological) - proper capitalisation please.
- I think the final 'Acknowledgements' subheader should actually be a header, as it is not related to the Space Guard project.

I think that, in its current state, this isn't too long to be one entry. There is a lot of scope for expansion, meaning that it could be split into several more detailed entries if you wanted, but I didn't have much trouble reading the entire entry as it is without getting bored or confused. Just my though.

Rocket Man.

I also think it's a good length. I did think of splitting it so that I had a separate entry on 'Comets' in general, but I don't really want to do that.
I'll put right the typos you menttioned. As I say, I'm still working on the wording of the opening section.

I've now formatted the quotations properly, using . I hadn't understood how to use this previously so Mikey.

I'm still not satisfied with my opening section so I'll continue to plug away at that.

How is it going with this one, any happier yet!!

I'll have a look (Haven't revisited this in a while)

Yes, I just re-checked this and I think it reads now. (I must have done this and then forgotten to say so).

just a thought, I know it was written hundreds of years ago but the Andrew Marvell poem isn't under any copyright restrictions is it?

Not unless they've extended the copyright laws from seventy years, no.

FM
( hadn't given copyright laws any thought!)

FM
( hadn't given copyright laws any thought!)

Hence the rationale behind Project Gutenberg. Mind you, some of the out-of-copyright text ought to stay out-of-print as well. I tried reading the Black Tulip. What a pile of pants.