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

Gee... It's been a long time, now.

I forgot what was in the backlog, and what the original Entry sounded like. I do remember, though, I liked it. I read it again.

I *still* like it.

Can anyone sum up what points have been raised or if there is anything pending from the PR convo? If not this is likely going to get picked soon.

SAUSAGE

PS: Or do you want to keep it in here for another 2 years?

The main problem was that we already have an entry on Buddy Holly in the Edited Guide - something that, because of problems with the search engine at the time, I didn't spot until way into the discussion. Although it has a completely different writing style, this entry covers the same subject in that it aims to act as a biography or overview of the subject just as the existing one does. As it originally stood (and currently still stands), it would just end up being a second entry about Buddy Holly.

It's been suggested that this might have worked as an update, but my own problem with the entry is that the convoluted sentence structure and florid writing style still make it difficult to pick out the facts, something I raised in posts 23 and 26. Then, my comments in post 60 also addressed the rather doom-laden tone of at least a few of the earlier drafts (although this is something that has been reduced significantly in the version available today).

I've tried to be as encouraging as possible with this entry, but I think it might be time to accept that it's not really offering anything other than an alternative way of writing the entry we already have, one that already conveys its information clearly and simply. At the very least, I'd suggest a move to the Writing Workshop might be beneficial while TR finds an approach that will make the ground the entry covers (as opposed to the style it's written in) distinctive enough.

Thanks for the briefing in, Jims.

I got a clear picture now: Presently not pickable.

I am not sure if this is of any help, or reduntant, or anything, but:

Maybe you could take all the biographical stuff (birth, marriage, success, death), condense it into 1-2 paras and link the section to the Edited Entry.

Then write a para explaining that the next bit is going to explore why Buddy Holly is less than a legend but more than a memory. (One speculation, which I haven't found addressed in the Entry - is that it is particularly easy to make a hero out of people like Buddy Holly, Jimi Hendrix and so on: They died just before they got too big to handle.)

Hmmm... Seems like this is going to cause a major re-sorting of data.

Anyhow, TR, I like the Entry as it is...

SAUSAGE

That's been the main problem - finding what the entry could be rather than being able to identify what it is.

I think a great many people would dispute the idea than Buddy Holly is 'less than a legend'. Would that make any entry that asserted the reverse an opinion piece?

Very tricky.

I guess the first thing to be explored is what defines the status of *legend*. On the other hand this alone is very subjective.



HELL

BTW: The problem could be solved by putting a question mark in the title: "More than a memory, less than a legend?"



HELL

Gotcha!

So, how do I move it from here unto the WW?

Go to PeerReview, find your entry and click on the little 'x'. That removes it from PR. Then you can do the same submission process you did in the first place, except selecting 'Edited Guide Writing Workshop' instead of 'Peer Review' from the drop-down list.

And I think, for sheer perserverence, flexibility and willingness to try so many approaches, you deserve a standing ovation, TR.