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

I have just written my first guide entry. Please be gentle...

http://www.h2g2.com/A452611

That's a good entry - though I wonder if it assumes the reader knows a little too much? Could you include extra information to help people like me, who haven't even seen the play?

A valid point, perhaps. You should have seen the unedited version. It was the size and consistency of a small dwelling.

Anything you need clarifying?

Well, as a Dutchman unfamiliar with English history, it does become clear that the shakespearian version of K.R. is over-simplified. The way you introduce it, it's like your going to refute the entire image. And then at the end it turns out Richard really wasn't a nice person at all. So where are the real diffs between Shakespeare and reality? Perhaps you could structure that a bit more clearly.

The entry is well-written.

What confuses me is that it appears to be a defense of Richard, but admits he is probably guilty of regicide, and the ordering of the deaths of the two princes. Not a great defense. The only good thing mentioned is that it appeared he might be a somewhat competent king, though there isn't any evidence provided for that.

1) I think I'd like some examples of his competence.
2) It's a small thing, but I don't like the phrase "the original Tricky Dicky" I am assuming it is a reference to the nickname given to Nixon, and it doesn't seem related. Different country, and very different crimes.

I was trying to indicate that Richard was a product of his time, and that he was - for one reason and another - plotted against by the nobles who were supposed to be loyal to him. They did, after all, "elect" him King in 1483, and then, almost immediately, began plotting against him.

His first "crime" (circumstantial evidence) of regicide promoted his brother to the throne. His second was less understandable, but still was not enough to justify the vile image he has. We cannot, after all, really force 21st-century morality on the 15th-century.

He was a competent monarch, that much has become clear, but was the victim of a hate campaign the British tabloids would be proud of - a hate campaign which continued long after his death.

However, I will make some changes to the text to try and clarify the issues raised...

Valid points one and all.

Have updated the entry. It doesn't really make Richard any nicer, but does make his enemies nastier - which explains some things, I hope. And it now explains why he was reasonably competent.

Also have removed the "Tricky Dicky" reference. Although the continents and the crimes were very different, the resulting anti-Richard (The Third or Nixon - you choose) feeling was very similar.

This is a good, informative entry.

I did, however, find the large number of rhetorical questions spread through the entry to be rather distracting.

Mikey

I see what you mean. Too much wearing my Richard is Innocent heart upon my sleeve...

I'll have a bit of a re-jig, see how I can improve it.

Hey, showpony!

how's this one going? you may have noticed that all the rhetorical questions are still there? i don't know if you'll believe this? but even if I really like an article? I just can't seem to bring myself to recommend it? with all these rhetorical questions?


Mikey

Apologies, Mikey.

I'm working on it off-line when I get the chance, but it's coming along - slowly but surely. Promise.

It's nice that it's being considered. Even if it's with a rejection letter. Consideration is good - certainly does my ego no harm. It's better than sugar lumps.

Regards,

The Pony

Better for your teeth, too...

True enough - but it's chock-full of cholesterol.

Ta Daaaaaaaa!

It's now been rejigged. Please tell me what you think

Pony

Great work, Showpony!
indeed.

The opposition of Richard the Trying To Make It Work vs. Richard the Evil SonOfBitch is much better now.

One thing though: you might want to format your paragraphs a little more compact (though the subed can do that as well), and you should insert some headers/subheaders to make it look less like a long slab of text and more like an article.

otherwise, well done!

Thank you.

I would shake your hand, but - being a horse - I have no opposable thumbs, which makes that really rather difficult.

I would also do all the whizzy header stuff, if I could for the life of me remember how to do it. It's been such a long time, and ponies have a notoriously bad memory.

This is . I luurve history and this is a most interesting and well written article.

It gets my support.

Good one Shadowpony

Very eezy.

Just write the text you'd like to have as a header, or a subheader,
and put right before it. then after it. with subheader it's similar duh..
click preview to see what it would be if updated correct any mistakes.

wanna try?

Will give it a go.

Thanks

It just goes to prove ponies are intrinsically silly animals.