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

That fictional account worked well for me

If you have something constructive to say, pailaway, please say it.

I am unable to offer entries to the EG because I am ignorant of many things and, where I have knowledge, I do not have the time to carry out sufficient research to formulate an entry based on that knowledge. However, I have knowledge of grammar and grammar is applicable to every EG entry. The function of PR is to make prospective entries as polished as possible; I pointed out some grammatical flaws that need to be addressed. I trust I made it clear that, if one is not familiar with technical terms, grammatical correction can be difficult. This is not personal, this is Peer Review.

If you have something constuctive to say, pailaway, please say it.

Van,

I think Pailaway was actually referring to the Entry, and not your comments

lil xx


Now, I'd better go and have a read

van-smeiter - I've dealt with the two minor grammatical points you raised, though I could not use the paragraph you provided due to the factual inaccuracies you introduced. I'd ask you to keep corrections short and to the point.

Yes, thanks Lil - I was definitely referring to the inclusion of a fictional account in the entry. On my first read through, I noticed it very particularly because it worked well and I remember thinking to myself 'ah good, an example'.

Regarding your PR comment, van-smelter, I recall thinking, 'now that is impressively pedantic' - which I mean as a compliment.

(van smeiter, i mean - my finger hit the wrong key - sorry)

pailaway. It was the fictional bit that threw me; I thought you were being sarcastic and I'm oversensitive at the moment. It frustrates me when I read a good entry that is spoiled by bad grammar

As you are a pair of the nicest reviewers I know in PR, I knew it had to be a misunderstanding



Alex, it's a fine Entry

Oh Noodles!




]

I'll happily correct with minimal explanation.

Line 1, replace "while" with "though". Line 2, replace "the individual" with "an individual". Line 3, insert a comma after "illnesses"; insert a comma after "depression". Line 4, substitute "them" with "these individuals".

The last sentence of the first paragraph doesn't mean what you seem to think it means; cf. "Mentally disordered individuals, though rare in society, can also become a danger to the public."

Line 6 needs rewording. "these individuals" suffer from different conditions so the usage of "their" is inappropriate. Line 8, insert a comma after "assessment"; insert a comma after "treatment".

Line 10, replace "detention legally available" with "legally available detention" This may need rewriting as both arrangements of words seem vague of meaning.

Line 11, replace the comma after "Act" with a semi-colon; replace "The Act" with "The 1983 Act". Line 12, remove the comma after "(2007)".

I need to make a so I'll post this and carry on in another post

I can't be arsed to keep counting the lines so I'll do it by section

History:
Line 1, remove "here". Line 2, "One of the major turning points in recent history" this is hyperbole and needs rewriting; replace "publishing" with "publication"; replace the comma after "1957" with a fullstop. Line 3, replace "which" with "The report" or "The Percy Report"; replace "with a similar regard" with "in a similar regard". Line 4, replace "after the report" with "later"; replace "It" with "The 1959 Act";
"allowed for admissions to mental health units to be as informal as those to medical wards" Did it? Presumably, admissions to mental health units were already allowed? Remove "for" or rewrite?
Line 5, remove "also"; are "councils" Councils, County Councils, Local Authorities? Quote from the Act to avoid confusion. Line 6 "This"? The Act or the extra responsibilty put on the 'councils'?

Line 8, "The following years" The years following what? The Percy Report, The 1959 Act or the next decade that saw the number of psychiatric outpatients rise from zero to several thousands?; replace "regarding" with "in regard to"; remove the comma after "illness". Line 9, replace "regarding" with "in regard to".

The rest of this paragraph is impossible for me to correct; the paragraph needs rewriting. However, as rewrites are unwelcome, the author is welcome to ponder his own corrections. More for me

Definitions of mental illness:
Line 1, remove "orginally"; replace "could be" with "was"; insert "to be" between "considered" and "a"; replace the full stop after "Act" with a semi-colon; uncapitalise "It". Line 2, insert "of mental illness" after "types" (and consider replacing "included" with "stated"?)

I'll assume the bullet-points are quoted from the 1983 Act so I'll take line 3 as beginning "It is worth noting..."

Line 3, remove the comma after "defintions"; insert a comma after "patients". Line 4, insert a comma after "unit";

"mentally ill and not 'psychopathic'" Given the definitions in the bullet-points, this doesn't make sense. 'Psychopathic disorder' is one of the definitions of mental illness; be clearer in your meaning.

Line 4, "have now been replaced" When? By what Act? Remove "now"? Line 5, replace ", along with" with "and".

Line 8, Remove "In the original text of". You make it sound as if Acts of Parliament can be rewritten. Acts of Parliament can be amended or repealed but they can't be rewritten per se. Line 9, Similarly, I'm not sure if "removed" is appropriate.

The rest of this section is confusing so I shall point out the obvious difficulties. What does 'this' at the end of line 10 refer to? Line 12, "and so" is a clumsy expression. Line 13, replace "might" with "may". Line 14, what do you mean by "This" and why is it "of course" a contentious matter? Line 15, is "disclaimer" the correct word? Line 16, remove "merely" (or perhaps replace "merely" with "solely"?) Line 17 "disclaimer" again?; replace "removed" with "replaced"; replace ", replacing it with one only covering" with "to cover just".

As I said in my original post, it will take me some time to work through this entry. I've tried to keep my corrections to points of grammar so if a correction affects accuracy, a sentence probably needs rewriting. There may be some arguments over points of style but I really have tried to correct what's here rather than change the style. Where I have questioned particular words, it is because those words seem questionable but they may be being used as terminology; I am not au fait with legal terminology.

Anyway, I shall carry on later but, in the meantime, I need more and I still haven't picked my for the National

Sections 2 and 3:
Line 1, remove "With the"; replace "the first section" with "Part I".

Please be consistent; is it a part of the Act or a section?

Replace "defining" with "defines"; replace the comma after "illness" with a semi-colon; replace "make up" with "constitute". Line 2, replace "they" with "these sections"; provide?; remove "actual"; replace "allowing" with "that allow". Line 3, replace "as" with "because".

Line 4, "must have sufficient experience in the diagnosis and treatment of mental disorders." to do what? You've got ahead of your reader here; you haven't yet explained what a Section 2 or a Section 3 involve. Line 5, replace "Section 12 approved" with "Section 12-approved" (this seems clumsy to me so a rewrite may be better); replace "generally have passed the examination for membership" with "are members of". Line 6, remove "otherwise".

Lines 5 & 6 may benefit from the use of the word "either"?

Line 7, remove the comma after "assessment"; is it an "individual" or a "patient"? BE CONSISTENT

Line 8, "It lasts for 28 days" What lasts for 28 days? Section 2, the jurisdiction of Section 2, the assessment? This sentence needs to be rewritten.

Line 9... line 9... I can't correct the rest of this section without rewriting it. To give an example, the sentence beginning in line 9 should begin something like this: "When a diagnosis and the required treatment of a patient has been established..." Clumsy, perhaps, but it does make sense; from line 9 onwards, this section doesn't make much sense. Sense can be made, post line 9, but making sense of something and something making sense are two different things.

Sections 4 and 5:
"In such instances that there is insufficient to arrange a Section 2", I think you've missed something out after "insufficient"

"This requires both a doctor and either an approved mental health professional or the individual's nearest relative and lasts for 72 hours, during which it can be converted to a Section 2..."

What requires both a doctor &c., the insufficient circumstances needed to arrange a Section 2 or the assessment under a section 4? Who is the individual (is he the patient?) Is "the individual's nearest relative" a geographical matter or do you mean next of kin? What lasts for 72 hours and what can be converted to a Section 2?

Lines 6&7, "on the other hand" to what? From what you describe, subsections 5(2) and 5(4) allow different actions that are not contradictory. Line 7, What does "urgently detain" mean?

marked to do after exams

Ok, so I've had time to do post 30. I've made changes to all the bits mentioned, except:

"A small number of mentally disordered individuals can also become a danger to the public." - this is exactly what I mean to say.

If you mean what you say then you are intimating that *one* mentally disordered individual can't become a danger to the public *and* that a *large* number of mentally disordered individuals can't become a danger to the public.

I think I know what you're trying to say- there are many mentally disordered individuals but few of them become a danger to the public.

Is that what you mean? How about:

A small proportion of these mentally disordered individuals also become a danger to the public.

I admit that that sentence doesn't sound pretty but it does sound more likely to be true than your sentence.

with your exams, Alex

A quick grammar lesson before I comment on Sections 7-10 and 17:

A man and a woman decide to get married and invite people to their wedding; their parents are overcome with joy.

Does that sound ok? If so, you've missed the obvious mistake!...












The man and the woman (two individuals) invite people to *their* wedding. After all, the wedding belongs to her as much as it does to him- the wedding belongs to both of them; it is *their* wedding. However, *his* parents can be overcome with joy and *her* parents can be overcome with joy but for *their* parents to be overcome with joy, the man and the woman would have to share the same parents! A brother can't marry his sister. Their doesn't mean the same as his/her

Sections 7-10 and 17:
Remove "While"; capitalise "sections"; replace "individuals to be detained against their will" (see grammar lesson above ) with "an individual to be detained against his will"; remove the comma after "will"; insert "but" after "will".

Line 2, "deals with associated matters, some of which will not be dealt with in detail here." This sentence is vague and verges on being meaningless!

Line 3, "an individual" any individual? A responsible individual? An individual who knows the patient? "The local social services" Local to whom? Line 4, "This can happen" what can happen?
I'm afraid that the rest of this paragraph is a mess and needs rewriting.

Line 8, "grant leave" leave from what? Line 9, "can be given" what can be given? Do you mean stated/prescribed? "the doctor... staff" needs rephrasing.

Line 10, insert a comma after "was"; insert a comma after "effect"; though the phrase "was in effect greatly expanded by the 2007 Act" seems to have an empty intensity. Are you using "in effect" in its colloquial usage or do you you mean that the 2007 Act 'expanded' the effect of Section 17? Either way, "expanded" is not the best word to use.

Line 11, replace "allows for a patient to continue to be treated" with "allows for a patient's treatment to be continued"; Line 12, insert "the patient is" between "while" and "not"; replace the hyphen after "detained" with a semi-colon; replace "they" with "a patient";

"can be ordered to take medication outside of hospital" you need to reword this phrase because it implies that a patient can be removed from a hospital and made to take medication. I assume that you're referring to patients who have been discharged from hospital but are still taking medication?

Line 13, replace "lasts up to" with "is valid for" or "can be enforced for" *You* are writing this entry so please show some authority with your wording! ; replace the comma after "renewed" with a semi-colon; remove "with"; insert "is" between "3" and "effectively"; remove "being". Line 14, remove "being". Line 15, replace the comma after "necessary" with a semi-colon; insert a comma after "instance"; replace "they stop" with "a patient stops"; replace "their" with "his", "her" or "his or her"; replace "become" with "becomes".

Line 16- replace the hyphen after "recalled" with a semi-colon; "their" see grammar lesson above and please adjust accordingly

<>
Quite correct van-smeiter, but neither does it imply joint ownership; it indicates plurality


Does that mean they all share the same car? No it doesn't


Does that imply that the couple share the same birthday? No it doesn't