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

Think I'' leave you in it Pimms, unless you have a violent objection. I'm getting a bit self-conscious about all the contributions I'm making which are 'single author'. Also, your contribution smoothed over very nicely a deficiency that I was aware of and could quite see how to get over.

BIGAL

C'mon b******t ' without me listed'.... You're good. Your contributions are good. What's the problem?

Credits.... credits.... credits...


Whoopee....

I'm drunk... sprryx...

HELL

PS: Isve seen the typo... hee hee

just read that sprryx.. meanz 'sorry'!

HWLL

(UNK!)

!!!

Yah... You're right, forget postings 42-43. I missed a great opportunity to shut up!

Sorry folks!

HELL

Your Guide Entry has just been picked from Peer Review by one of our Scouts, and is now heading off into the Editorial Process, which ends with publication in the Edited Guide. We've therefore moved this Review Conversation out of Peer Review and to the entry itself.

If you'd like to know what happens now, check out the page on 'What Happens after your Entry has been Recommended?' at EditedGuide-Process. We hope this explains everything.

Thanks for contributing to the Edited Guide!

Well done BigAl

Congrats!

!

Hi, all -- I'm the subeditor on this one. Really doesn't look like it will need too much work -- just some minor things here and there. The Edited version will live at A2922130 -- I'll try to give a holler here when I'm done.


Mikey

Mikey,,

Well, I've started in on it a bit now -- the changes I've made so far are mostly in terms of formatting, bringing things in line with the Edited Guide style. If I have any questions or need to change anything major, I'll be sure to let you know!


Mikey

OK, I'm a bit further along now.

I've changed very little as far as the actual text, but did end up making some considerable changes in the order of things, as it seemed to be jumping around quite a bit. I also had to change many of the external links, to bring them in line with our guidelines for the Edited Guide.

Anyway, if y'all want to take a look and let me know if there's anything that isn't making sense, now is the time. I'll probably be dealing with the rest of the little stuff (mostly grammar) sometime next week, and then turn it in.


Mikey

The article is fine. However some of the additional linnks you have put in have an extremely tenuous link indeed with the subject matter. These include: lentils, soup, Aristophanes' 'The Frogs', Germany, super-ellipse, Roger Bacon and The Brazen Head, Mathematics, France, plastics.

Incidentally, the hyperlink from 'microscopes' doesn't work.

The whole point of a link is that it either gives the source from which the author got his information (valuable if the information is controversial, and the reader can then make up his own mind about the credibility of the source); or to extend what has been written.

My original link for Aristophanes, for example, was intended to give an overview of who he was and what he did.

My link from 'plastics' gave information on what types of plastics can be used in optical lenses, and the EG link doesn't do this at all.

The EG entry on 'Mathematics' does not extend/amplify or indeed mention at all the mathematics of optical lenses.

There is no point whatever in linking to EG entries just for the sake of it, if they don't amplify/illuminate what the actual article is about.

I'm not so sure about 'France' and 'Germany'. I was happy with the 'Italy' (Italian) link because that entry had some info about scientific achievements asd well as the arts, but 'France' and 'Germany' did not have this.



Hope this makes some sense?

P.S. I discovered an EG entry on 'Taxonomy' at A600508.

Please could you link thre Latin name for lentil (Lens culinaris) to this.

I think perhaps the guidelines for links in the Edited Guide may be a little different than what you are thinking.

For external links, there are all sorts of guidelines about what kind of sites and links are and are not acceptable -- many (perhaps most) of the external links in your entry didn't meet these guidelines, and needed to be changed.

Internal links in the Edited Guide generally are intended to go far beyond simply being about what is in the entry at hand -- they go more back to the true roots of hypertext -- you click on the word mathematics, and are taken to an entry about mathematics -- clicking on Germany takes you to an entry about Germany. The point is not (and never has been) simply to expand on the Edited Entry at hand, but rather to expose people to other Edited Guide entries they might find interesting, and might not otherwise come across.

I did fix the microscopes link, though, thanks for that!

Unfortunately, I can't really use a link to the taxonomy entry. There has to be a clear and obvious link between the word used to anchor the link and the title of the entry it links to.

For example, even if an entry titled "Early American Politics" had quite a bit about George Washington, it would be nixed if I tried to anchor a link to that entry on the words "George Washington". In order to anchor a link on the words "George Washington", I need titles of Edited Guide entries like "The First American President" or "George Washington".

Mikey. for that. I was going to suggest adding a sentence including the word 'taxonomy' in order to link to the EG entry, but then that sentence is outside the subject matter of my article, so defetats my own argument.

Well, I think I've managed to catch all of the spelling and grammar stuff I'm going to see, plus made the changes needed to meet the Edited Guide guidelines in various areas. Anyway, if you want to take a look at it and see if all looks ok, that would be great. If you don't have time, that's ok, too.


Mikey