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

http://www.bbc.co.uk/h2g2/guide/A343856

The author, Calroth (http://www.bbc.co.uk/h2g2/guide/U103337) doesn't seem to be around here any more, but IMHO the entry is complete and a SubEd could take care of some instances of 1st person writing style.

Any opinions?

Agreed - in fact, I felt sufficiently confident of this article in it's present state to reference it in one of my own articles (means I'll have to get the SubEd to change the link, but that's no problem). Please note I'm speaking as a layperson Towel-Wielder, not one of those Scout folks!

NQAH (more likely to be a Tail-End Charlie than a Scout)

Well, that's the same with me Neither am I a scout, and I also need to cross-link to a Big Bang Entry!

It's good to see non-Scouts helping the Peer Review process along - I hope, NQAH, that you'll continue to do so...

It is certainly a good entry about the Big Bang - but I wonder if an entry that ignores, for example, the "inflation" theory will get into the guide - it does seem perhaps a touch lightweight?

This is the problem with all of Calroth's entries, I find - they're good stuff, and I wouldn't have any objections to them being recommended...... but I wouldn't recommend them myself. I've just been to look at his non-h2g2 website, and I can't find an email address or message board...

This entry seems full of conclusions, with no explanations. It mentions the hubble expansion, but not the how and why. It mentions the critical density, the three possible fates for the universe, but not why each would happen. It mentions scientists liking the value near the critical density, and in passing it mentions dark matter, but not that we know from gravity measurements that it must be approximately critical. it mentions the big bang initial conditions, but not that mathematically speaking, it is identical with a black hole.
On the whole, it strikes me that this is the basis for a good entry, but it needs a lot more work before it would be suitable for the edited guide.

There seems to be a consensus here -- what would people say to my recommending that this thread be moved to the Writing Workshop, as it's not quite ready as is?


Mikey

good idea

ok, then so be it -- causa finita. Well, at least I tried

I agree. This article still needs some work. There is in fact very little in it about the big bang itself. It is mainly about the expansion and future of the universe.

Did you know that the Author of the term "Big Bang" recently died.
His name was Fred Hoyle.
On April 14th you stated on an article about the Big Bang
that the Author didn't seem to be around anymore.
I checked his home page and found he had a conversation the end of June,. So Apparently it is not that he has left permanently only that unlike you or I he only makes rare appearances.
Since some articles take months to go through Peer review, it seems like you were a little quick to call him gone.
Maybe one of the aces could get him to enter collaberation on the Big Bang as I really think this is a topic the guide needs.

One other slight problem - all the information about the Universe being 'flat', 'open' or 'closed' is utterly wrong!! These words are easily misinterpreted, since they have totally different meanings to non-physicists, and even to physicists who don't do astrophysics, but there are quite a few misconceptions here!! I don't mean to sound so pedantic!

And there is the other problem that only one researcher can be doing a topic. Since he got there first neither you nor I can do one with
the facts as we see them.

Oops, indeed, he has been visiting back since then!

But 'only one researcher can do a topic' isn't quite the case. There's only one entry per topic in the Edited guide, but this can be done by a collaborative effort, and (once in the Guide) is open to later update from other researchers too. And ATM there's no Edited entry about the Big Bang at all.

Editorial Note: This conversation has been moved from 'The Writing Workshop' to 'The Flea Market'.

I think maybe I will see what I can do about this article.
Let's just say we are going to try a shagbark article on the Big Bang.

Hi, folks! I'm Calroth, the original author, and I am very very very late.

I'm also not up to speed with the recent changes to h2g2 regarding editing and approval, so in case it's not already obvious, I give anybody and everybody my blessings if they want to revise or edit this

Unless it's already been done, of course, in which case, cheers

EGE A653230

Can this be removed now?


Wilma

No it cannot. You should know bym now the BBC never discards anything and only the original author can discard an entry he made. so if he has gone elvis we are stuck with it. Also the Article I wrote that made it into the EG is getting a lot of forum threads underneath it.

Hello Shagbark,

I think if you check you will find it has been removed now - from the fleamarket back to the author's personal space.

I am not sure what the issue is with the convo threads on your entry though.

Wilma

sorry, I misunderstood your use of the term remove. Of course they can take something out of a forum.
I am debating whether the latest thread under my big bang article breaks some house rule against comercialism. It sounds almost like he is trying to sell some book there.