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

Entry: Formula 1: Grand Prix Winners - A527582
Author: Eric L. Fleming - U158159

More stats...

This is part of a series on Formula One Racing. Any suggested changes will have to be made by the sub-ed.

I really don't think any of these 'stats-only' entries from the uni project stand up as individual entries... not without a lot of extra content anyhow

I once had a similar stats-only Entry about Nobel Prize Winners up for PR. It didn't last a week in here. The problem is that such Entries cannot stand alone.

HELL

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!

Hey you DNA messengers and scouts!!!... Look at the PR thread: Two peers saying its so-so and no comment???

I don't really like this. Any comment??

HELL

Hmm, I didn't recommend it, but having said that, the main difference between this entry and the Nobel Prize entry seems to be that this one doesn't have to stand completely on its own, as it was originally part of the University Project it is still supported by the other entries in the series... That's my look on it anyway

I don't agree with this. It's not good EG material in my opinion. And it's going to need constant updating. Who's going to do that?

It works as part of the UNi project, and I think can only work in that context, so it needs to be linked to all the other Formula One entries... which pretty much means that we've got us a Uni project sitting in the EG

Ah, now the problem of updates is another matter altogether ... but lets face it, it only needs updating once a year.

Still defending the scout who picked it, ok, it can't stand on its own and needs the other entries, but is this any different than a long entry that's been split into smaller entries...

Take for example A751961 (part of an entry I put through PR on Thomas the Tank Engine). One its own, this single guide entry wouldn't have got anywhere near the edited guide, it's just an out of context list of characters and book titles without a single word of explanation! However, with the links at the top of the entry, everything is made clear. Why not include it in the guide - after all, university projects are simply interlinked edited entries with an introduction.


Whisky
(wondering whether any of the italics are going to join in on this one?)

I understand your point Whisky, and one could certainly argue whether this one should go in or not. However, my main point here is that the PR thread was not nearly over yet. See? This discussion we are having NOW should take place BEFORE some scout hits the recc-button, BEFORE the Congratulations post appears.

Why not reach a consensus before?

The way this one went in makes me very uncomfortable. One of the criteria before picking is that the PR thread should be complete and most of the participants have reached a consensus. This includes some participation of the author or at least someone who can nurse the Entry, like a potential Subbie in this case, where this is a UNI salvage (IMO).

I mean: We cannot take abandoned half-good UNI projects and pipeline them through PR without reaching a proper PR consensus...

Are we that desperate?

And: Yes, the updating problem is a different one, agreed, but if someone bops in an Entry that we can foresee is going to need updating we're all gonna mope. However this is not the case if the author is AWOL and the Entry is a UNI-Project-salvage.

Many of the other F1 Entries are good BTW and can stand alone quite well. (OK, at least to some good extent) This one is different.

Do you think it is worth it to continue discussing this? (I think so) Do you think some italics will revoke the decision to let this one in? (I son't think so)

Anyways, I am very uncomfortable with some things that have been happening in PR lately. I always thought quality should come first.

HELL

True, I agree with a lot you are saying there...

Maybe a little off-topic to this particular case, but one problem I see with this sort of salvage operation is that there is no author to make changes... maybe this sort of entry should be left in the flea market until an 'active' researcher wants to take responsibility for it... at the moment, half the problem is that there is no one on-site (with the exception of the editors) who is actually responsible for this piece...

Most statistical type information can be quite easily made suitable for independant inclusion in the guide simply by the addition of a short intro... but in this case, who writes the intro?

The poor Subbie? Nah - I don't think so.

Now that you mentioned it it's clear to me: Why didn't we endorse that before? The UNI -> PR pipeline should be routed through the FM first to make sure there's *someone* nursing the Entry. We should keep that in mind for the next time. That's also something I remember annoyed me when this operation started... Somehow I didn't know exacly what it was... I don't think it's a good idea to take Entries directly from abandoned UNI-Pojects and put them in PR. No matter how good the Entries are. I mean us scouts are involved in that process and we read the Entries before they were sent in for PR, the good ones could be taken from FM by one of us. The incomplete and dodgy ones could remain there until someone takes them over.

Whisky, I think this is a great suggestion. But - right here - it's not going to change anything.

I am still uncomfortable with all that, and this Entry should not have made it into the EG... Anyways, we sure have learnt something.



HELL

Hmm, I wonder if there's any chance of an official comment about this Anyone out there reading this thread?

I accepted the pick yesterday as part of the last lot from the abandoned Uni project on Formula 1 - I just assumed we were going to pick all of them. Although it fulfills the main factual criteria of an Edited Guide entry, on reflection I really can see your point - as a stand alone entry it's weak. But it is part of other relevant entries that it will link to (and vice versa), just as we have discographies that link to band entries. As a whole, they make sense and I tend to think of the entries as one big entry that we've split up. I'll make sure that we make the links on each of the entries very clear. Also, what we can do, once we've got the entries back, is have a look at maybe grafting some of the F1 entries together, to get round the concerns that you've addressed. Apologies for just accepting this pick without addressing these concerns at the top of the thread.

Sam.

Well... On reflection *I* can see *YOUR* point, too. I can now understand it a lot better why this one has been picked. I think what made me feel so uncomfortable was the fact that the Entry was picked just like that - without a comment on the concerns in the bcklog of the PR, this made it look like a very arbitrary decision. If you had added a comment before I wouldn't have felt so incommodated, I think.

Anyways better late than never.

HELL

HELL, you're dead right - I should've said something. I can see that now. Anyway, I'm glad we've sorted this out.

OMG, will you too stop smiling at each other like a pair of love-struck teenagers any minute now you're going to be hugging each other


And I was so looking forward to sitting back and enjoying a good old fashioned bar-room brawl develop

Whisky, I love you.

BTW, Whisky don't you think that's a lot more than butchering people...

HELL

I think I'm gonna barf. When did h2g2 re-locate to California?

Hey Gosho welcome ...

(Shouldn't there be and smileys too?)