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

Entry: The Ninth Doctor - A5001959
Author: lf2871 - U1781133

The Ninth incarnation of the Doctor Fasinated me so I thought, why not write a guide entry! So here it is. I hope that it's useful (and accurate). I would appreciate any comments or advice you have to offer. Oh and I would also like to say thank you to everyone who helped me edit it and sort the Grammar. Thank you!

This is very good. I think it might need a little bit more of a general introduction - it shouldn't assume that the reader knows all about Doctor Who.

I think the middle section looks scrappy because there are a lot of isolated sentences. These should be grouped into paragraphs a bit more.

The final section should introduce Rose, explain who she is and that she is Doctor's companion, with perhaps one or two sentences on Doctor Who companions, before launching into the relationship between Eccleston's Doctor and Rose.

Well done!

Thanks for your comments! Im glad you liked it overall. I didn't think that i assumed everyone knew everything about Doctor Who, but i will try to explain things a little bit more. Thank you for shareing your opinion with me. This is my first Peer Review article so i'm glad all the critasism was constructive and not just "This is Rubish" which is kind what i was expecting!

Not rubbish at all - it's very good for a first entry!

Changing the title might help a bit. You could have 'The Ninth Doctor Who - a Character Profile' or even 'Christopher Eccleston's Doctor Who', which would open the subject out a little.

I hope you don't mind me delving into the entry - most people's entries get a lot of bitty comments so I'm just working my way through in one go so the comments are all in one place

There are a few inaccuracies in the section on Christopher Eccleston. He was *one of* the shortest-serving Doctors but fans of Paul McGann would argue about him being the shortest-serving.

He didn't resign before a single episode had been shot - well, not officially. It might be better to say that he was cast to play the part for the first new series and he elected not to stay on for a second. The official announcement about his resignation came on the wednsesday after the transmission of the first episode, though the production team knew that he wouldn't be back well before this.

If you fancy learning a little more about GuideML, you can link to external websites if they're not commercial. The Internet Movie Database would be a good one to link to, Just replace Christopher Eccleston's name in that second paragraph with the following:

Christopher Eccleston

I think you can afford to go into more detail about the episodes you mention. The section on 'Dalek' might not make sense to someone who either didn't see the episode or has forgotten what happened in a year's time.

I'd also add an episode guide, listing the episodes and rather than writing out the plot just commenting on what we learn about the Doctor.

So, for example:

'End of the World'
Jabe, a representative of the tree people from the Forest of Cheam, reveals that the Doctor is the last of his race, sole survivor from the Time War. This is later confirmed by the Doctor when he tells Rose that all of his people are gone.

Please do continue to work on this - it'll make a superb entry (and as two of the Editorial team are big Doctor Who nuts we'd love to have an entry on this).

Jimster

Thanks for your advice! I will change the title. As for the Paul Megann thing i will confess i totaly forgot about him so i guess i should change that too! I actually said he resigned before the first episode had been shown (Not shot), which is what starburst told me! I should go into more detail about the episodes i mention but i have this nasty habit of asumeing everyone knows everything i do! As for the episode guide it's a good idea! I'm actually working on one with another researcher so i could link it once it's done. Just want to say thankyou again for your encourgement, it does mean a lot.

Its a good start, but it needs a lot of work. At present it resembles a series of notes.

A look at how and why the show came back would help to put it into context. A link to the Doctor Who section on the BBC is a must.

I believe that Rose should have a much bigger section on her as there is a sense in which she changes the Doctor over the course of the series.

Look at some of the other entries to get a feel for the way this should be put together. There are links from the Dr Who group page.

For the non Who fans it needs much more context and in a sense your take on the ninth doctor seems too personal for an edited guide entry. The rhetorical questions are more suitable for The Post and this will have to be brushed up before it has a chance of making the EG.

I'm sorry if this sounds negative, but as a former scout (and with an entry about Doc 3 under my belt) I can tell you that it will be a long road from here. After stylistic issues are sorted out the actual content will be picked over for quite a while before the anoraks are happy!!

Regards sbe

Hi, I enjoyed the read, however a couple of quick points.

Would it be possible to remove the first personness :ie I think .

In the writing guidelines, it mentiones that we prefer entries to not be in the first person.

also there is a line

but Why ? ----> But why ?

Ahh well um thats hard to explain! I'm not actually sure, it just seemed right! Do you think i should deleate it? I can't actually see the personal pronouns but if you point them out i will gladly remove them. Ok i'm getting the Vibe i should meyby remove this from peer review?

No, you shouldn't remove this from Peer Review at all! It's quite good, just needs a little work along the lines of what the other posters have suggested. Incorporate those suggestions and you will be the author of a terrific entry!

Thank you, i shall.

I think you've handled your first approach to Peer Review tremendously. I know a lot of the discussion on this has gone on outside of this conversation, but you've been really receptive to suggestions and worked very hard on this.

In fact, I'd say this is ready to go now. All it needs is a Scout willing to recommend it

Just a quick thing or two: shouldn't it be IMDb rather than IMDB, the former is how it is on the site? Also the quote you've put in italics would look better in a tag rather than aligning it etc. try it, it does all the hard work for you. Otherwise a much needed entry in the guide - I'm not part of the Doctor Who fans of H2G2 but should there be a list of the episodes he was in or will that be found somewhere else?

Tony2Times/Prof. Chaos: Thanks for taking the time to read my article and post. I’m not sure what you mean by “Be IMDb rather than IMDB” and as for the quote thing that was Jimster’s idea I just agreed! But I will give it due thought, thank you! The episode list is going to be done as a separate guide entry (I’m not sure if I’ll do it….) as a series guide.

Jimster : Just going to take this opportunity to say thank you again. Of course i took your suggestions, they were all good. I have absolutely no problem with sugestions or criticism as long as it's constructive and valid. Oh and Jimster I am here to learn! And trust me I can think of no one better to teach me than you!
I know that since your an editor you do have a lot to do so it means a lot to me that you were willing to help me with this article, there is absolutely no way i could have done this without you, I'd be in tears by now!

Yey, Now all i need is a scout!!

Its just a pedantic thing but your link to Chris Eccleston on the IMDb website, they b should be lower case instead of caps purely because its how it is on the website and its only for base in Database. As I said, completely pedantic and anal.

And don't thank Jimster too much, don't forget all the work you put in yourself, PR is here to tidy up the genius of you. Though not all of us are blessed with an italic. Lucky

Have changed it just for you No point in going against tradition (In this case anyway!)

Considering that I helped you take your first tentative steps into the world of Entry writing I thought I'd pop in and say: nice!

Your Guide Entry has just been picked from Peer Review by one of our Scouts, and is now heading off into the Editorial Process, which ends with publication in the Edited Guide. We've therefore moved this Review Conversation out of Peer Review and to the entry itself.

If you'd like to know what happens now, check out the page on 'What Happens after your Entry has been Recommended?' at EditedGuide-Process. We hope this explains everything.

Thanks for contributing to the Edited Guide!

Congradulashuns!

Well done!

yeay