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

hmm, I forgot to come back again, sorry! There are still a *lot* of long footnotes, but I think that may be a losing battle on my part.

I think this is ready now, what do other people think?

Well, there are a lot of footnotes.

I.MO. FN's 1 and 3 are irrelevant to the Entry and can be removed

FN 4 (about organic chemicals) can be removed by linking the word 'organic' to A388217.

FN's 6 and 7, concerning CO, should be incorporated into the main body.

The author said he still needs to do more work concerning FN9

Thanks BigAl, I'd missed that comment about more work being needed.

this looks fine to me (apart from all the chemistry stuff... I'll take everyone's word on it that it's accurate)

Yes, it's more or less ready - just needs streamlining in terms of footnotes.

Trig, are you going to deal with this?

There are too many footnotes, but I think the sub could work them in to some extent and make the final decision as to what is appropriate and what isn't. What do you guys think?

Yes. I will do something about this. The guilt is mounting up to intolerable levels at this point.

But then there's the exam I have to repeat, and the , and the ... .

TRiG.

well, I like footnotes. I don't understand what people have against them, but this isn't the place (but I know where the place is )

um... yes, I thnk this one is spiffing

But I will work on it. I'll probably get something done tomorrow and Monday.

Just a link back to the entry, so it's easy to get to: A3421289

Sho, no-one has anything against footnotes. Two of them here are paragraphs in their own right, and therefore not asides. Others can be worked into the text. That's all there is to it.

OK, no problem.

The footnote thing is something more suited to a PR discussion rather than on an entry

Which I have now done.

Footnote 3 (about the spelling of sulpher/sulfer) removed.

Footnote 6 (about carbon monoxide and haemoglobin) put into main text.

The word organic linked to A388217 as suggested, but the footnote left in for now. I'll probably remove it, but I'll think about it first.

And yes, footnote 9 (now footnote 7) still needs more work.

YTiG.

Preview ... Preview ...

I got my signiture wrong!

TRiG.

"Sho, no-one has anything against footnotes."

Sorry, I do! I do try to keep it a dull roar though.

"The footnote thing is something more suited to a PR discussion rather than on an entry.

Which I have now done."


Drop us a link, would you? Please?

TRiG.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/classic/F3719964?thread=2569210 it's on the A9741972 The Nearly but Not Quite 'Official' Peer Review Discussion Forum

We might be able to help you with the footnote thing - there are one or two that seem a little too... well, one of them just explains that you got the info from Peer Review, so that one can go, because that's what PR is for . If you want to credit the person who gave you that information, you can do so by adding them as a Researcher, or you can give them an 'Additional Research' credit (if you don't know how to do that, just pop a note into that footnote with the Researcher's user number and we can fix that when this is picked).

I say 'when', because this is looking good to me (who, admittedly doesn't know anything about the subject). So maybe a Scout might feel brave enough to pick it...

Er, perhaps best not picked just yet.

With the PR footnote thing, it's just that I lifted it directly. If I google it and see it written anywhere else I'll just drop the footnote and be happy with it. After lunch, perhaps.

TRiG.

Should the link to A388217 (Organic Chemistry) be on the phrase /organic compounds/ or just on the word /organic/?

TRiG.