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

In that case, you'll have to remove this reference:

(see the salt water in the ice-bucket example below)

A6130306 - Richard and Judy - TV Presenters - post 42



It's so long since I wrote this that I've forgotten what I wrote!

I have tried to remove it, but I keep getting "Sorry! We're unable to bring you the page you're looking for right now. This is probably because our site has suddenly got very busy. Please do try again in a few minutes" every time I try to update.

I'll try again in a few minutes.

Bit more feedback on this

I'm a little uncomfortable with some of the wording used to describe the pair, to be honest. It reads at times like an insult masked as a compliment. You might want to look at this again to see if there's another way of saying what you mean without coming across as saying Judy's frumpy and unprofessional and Richard's an egomaniac (which is what it currently seems to be hinting). I'd have thought the way they're so natural with each other might lead us to feel that they're unguarded and open with their viewers, which is why they've been TV's top couple for so long.


>> Allegedly, the This Morning production team had an 'RSI box' (Richard's Stupid Ideas) into which they slipped pieces of paper scribbled with nuggets such as the cure for the Millennium Bug.<<

I'd like to see a reference for this, Annie. It's actually a bit steep to say this without attribution (and putting 'allegedly' in front doesn't protect you, legally).

>> Judy is a very emotional person who wears her heart on her sleeve. When Princess Diana died in 1997, Judy wept on air and worried about 'the boys' - Princes William and Harry.<<

This feels quite random where it's currently positioned. This might fit better in the 'Judy' section near the start.

In fact, there are a few paragraphs there that feel lust a litte disproportionately anecdotal - Richard as Ali G, Keith Chegwin's alcohol-problem and the Streaker - which could benefit from either being added to with a lot more additional research or, preferably, dropped completely. With ten years-worth of broadcasting, these examples don't feel representative enough on their own.

While you feature Dr Chris and Denise Robertson, they're only patr of the story: Susan Brookes was the regular cookery expert and poor Fred Talbot (one of the North-west's greatest characetrs) is sidelined by a reference to the streakers.

It's important to mention that the location of Granada studios was the recent;y renovated Albert Dock, at one time the very heart of Merseyside international trade but converted into luxury shops and apartments in the early 1980s as part of the urban regeneration programme. The studio looked out onto the dock itself, and Fred Talbot presented his weather reports standing on a floating map of the UK; loyal viewers watched from the quayside and cheered him each time he leaped across the map from Mainland Britain to Northern Ireland. With the location being part of a complex open to the public, Granada tried to ensure recordings weren't spoiled by members of the public, but a number of streakers did manage to interrupt proceedings (Mark Roberts being the most persistent). The streakers usually swam across the dock to make their way onto Fred's map, but perhaps they'd have been less eager to bare all if they'd noticed that the dock was home to thousands of jelly fish...

>> The programme moved to London in 1996, because they had lost high-profile guests who were unwilling to travel<<

The words 'up to Liverpool' are missing from the end of this sentence.

I'd suggest removing the link to Woman's Hour and moving it to the references at the bottom of the page (with an appropriate title tag) as it looks a bit clumsy having two linked elements right next to each other. Might also be good to move the link to the Richard and Judy official page to the references too, though.


>> Magenta Devine, Lowri Turner, Quentin Letts, <<

I know two of these people, but a footnoted biog of each wouldn't hurt.

I'm really not sure what you're trying to say in describing Vanessa Feltz as 'ever changing'...

You might find this next suggestion is a bit of an odd one coming from me: drop the entire Doctor Who section. As hosts of a chat show, they must have interviewed the entire cast of many, many shows, so Doctor Who is nothing unique. It makes sense that they've happened to interviw thos eparticular people because David Tennant is a rising star and Tom Baker has just done some work for BT and was being interviewed all over the place that week (and the same goes for the next reference to John Barrowman furtehr down in the sex bit).

Besides, Anne & Nick and Blue Peter have interviewed more of the original cast anyway

Likewise, even though it was quite a big thing, the Stephen Hawking interview is just one of many and feels a little random. It'd be better to link to the story in the References (especially because that kind of link won't work on mobiles so the sentence won't make sense there).

It does show just how huge a topic this is though. With a topic like this, it's best to keep to the broad strokes as much as possible, with just a couple of related examples, rather than trying to cram in every detail you can think of and then struggle to make it all fit.

I think I've seen to everything except the links for Magenta Devine, Lowri Turner, Quentin Letts.

I'm sorry I came acreoss as saying Judy is Judy's frumpy and unprofessional because that's not what I meant at all. I admire her a lot and what I said was genuine. I think she deserves a medal for putting up with him.

I've removed that paragraph, and the one describing Richard, even though it was true, it was personal opinion.

Will add the links tomorrow, far too tired to now.

Added links, removed everything I don't think is relevant, just left a few examples.

it still looks very lovely to me

Ah, you spotted I left Johnny Depp in, did you?

first thing I check when it's one of yours

he's practically horizontalRichard jumps straight in -->
he's practically horizontal. Richard jumps straight in

Hmm that happened because I cut a great swathe through the Richard section as it didn't balance with Judy's.

I then had two sentences starting with "Richard" and wasn't happy with the 2nd sentence so I've changed it to:

Richard is so laid-back he's practically horizontal. He jumps straight in, asking direct questions, which sometimes appear rude. He makes extraordinary gaffes...

Does that sound better?

Well, I've checked and it looks alright to me, now.

I have done everything asked of me, so I'm assuming this is ready for picking now.

*waves at any passing Scout*

Do you need help with that waving?

Annie, I've had another look at this. I think the introduction could be approved. You should say at the start exactly what you are talking about. In this case, you should say right at the start that Richard and Judy are a husband and wife team who jointly present a British TV program. At the moment, you don't mention the fact that they are married for a few sentences and you don't say that they work together at all in the introduction.

Of course, I meant: I think the introduction could be improved.

Introduction changed

and this one is ready to rock 'n' roll, I think

I'm happy with this entry now.

That makes me so happy I could kiss someone, so you better move quick Gnomon and I'll Sho

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!