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

http://www.bbc.co.uk/h2g2/guide/A647426

I would like to recommend this entry. Constructive comments please!

I saw this when I was rummaging about your page last week; when I saw it was in Peer Review, I just had to come and comment! Only three points; I thought this was a very good entry (and timely).

1. I personally don't like the statement "This entry seeks to outline the Quaker Peace Testament and to examine its relevance in today's society."--it's one of those "I am going to tell you about" sentences that can become very monotonous--it is a thesis statement, not informational.

2. The first sentence under "Quakers and Terrorism" seems to be lacking a punctuation mark--did you intend it that way?

3. The end seems a bit abrupt--ending with a quotation doesn't leave much of a conclusion. I'm not quite sure what you *could* say at that point, but something is in order, I believe. Perhaps rearranging your headings could help--I'm not sure.


BTW, what is the Quaker Oat connection?


Shee

Hi Shee!

Thanks for the comments.

1. I'll remove the offending sentence. I agree it sounds pretensious.

2. No, it should have a full stop. I'll insert one.

3. Hmm. I did wonder about putting a section of useful links here. If you go in to the 'Quakers' link, which I heartily recommend you do, there is some wonderful stuff there, including arms trade monitoring, peace initiatives etc. Perhaps I could insert something about that. What do you think?

4. Well none actually, as I found out when I looked under the link 'Quaker names sites without a clue'. It was started in 1901 and I assume used the Quaker name and the picture of a Quaker in full garb because of the Quakers' reputation for truth. I did wonder about keeping it in, but then I grew up on Quaker Oats and did associate it with them. Maybe a footnote would suffice.

Links would be good, although I wonder about the affect after reading so much more emotional stuff... References, certainly.

From Terrorism-->Peace is a good conclusion, especially as the entry's point is Quaker views on Peace(). You explained Quakerism (ack, what a word) really well at the beginning, especially for the amount of space you used, so it would be difficult to transfer some of the information from the beginning to the end--it flows too well (that's a good thing! ).

Arms monitoring might be good; it is a rather controversial subject and would be good to get some views out in the open. Peace initiatives would probably be better though--more keeping with the terrorism theme of the last section. Or depending on how long they take to explain, you could include both(?).

Sorry, I'm typing my thinking process... Ramble, I do...

Well, it is it finished? If you want, I'll look up the 'Oats' connection down at the library. That's beginning to bug me.
I agree with the above fellow. Something about relevancy seems strained.
I must admit I'm reading this through American eyes. The Quakers have quite a presence in our history.
I've always been confused by the difference between creeds and tenets and testaments and statements of faith or doctrine. If you can put it on a bumper sticker, it's a philosophy to me.
I do feel that the block of italicized text is a bit hard on the eyes and as I said elsewhere, maybe a bit of a bludgeon to the uninitiated.
I'm not suggesting that you peddle pap to the lowest common, just that it might be a little easier to swallow than your average tax document.
In any case, this sucker rocks. Keep up the good work.

Hi, Shee and Tonsil's Revenge!

Thank you for the comments. Grim news today - I hope it doesn't turn out to be terrorists, but whatever it is, the human toll is the same.

I will do a final header - maybe 'Peaceworks' or I could use 'From terrorism to peace'. I think I like the first best and set out some of the things that are going on. At my meeting there is one chap - rather an elderly man - who has recently been to Bosnia and has a long history of working to resolve differences. I'll include links as well.

As for the blockquote - I agree that the italics hurt your eyes, but I thought that you always *have* to put blockquotes in italics. If not, I'll take them out. I was tempted when writing the entry to prune this part, but couldn't bring myself to do it. I felt that it was beautifully written and argued and that it would lose a lot if I condensed it. If I don't have to put the blockquote in italics, I'd happily unitalicise it (is there such a work as unitalicise?).

TR - if you go in to the Quakers link, you should get to the Quaker Oats website fairly easily. However, maybe you're right about including it. It won't hurt to lose the reference (any as I say, you can get to it under the 'Quakers without a clue' link.

I have changed the entry as per suggestions. It needs a little polishing at the end, which I'll do tomorrow. There's a couple more links to add, I think.

Any further comments?

"where or not to fight"?

The last sentence is superfluous. You stated that in the lead of the previous paragraph.
The German relief paragraph about the grateful achieving prominence in Narzi Germany has a lmpy feel, like the part that says 'Germans now in positions of repsonsibility'.
Otherwise, give it one more swipe with the rag and close the garage.
I hope the BBCedrics will let you make it into edit.
I've seen three entries I've been nipping at the heels of make it to edit today. Whoopee!

Done!

Dusted?

Ploished. Uh, polished.

And all the links work! I checked them.

Now all we can do is wait for the gods to smile on it.

I have a few comments to make

I like the section on quakers and terrorism, but you do not state who Robert Griswold is, in relation to the quakers.

At the end, I think that linked sites are could be replaced with "related sites include", or something similar. Linked sites could be ambiguous as it could mean sites that you have given links to, rather than sites that are related to the subject matter.

There is a mention of the mennonites in footnote 2, but there is no other mention of them in the entry, so it is not clear why they are mentioned.

Adolf Hitler is mispelled in footnote 2.



Apart, from that, I think this is

I missed the last part of the last message off. That should read

Apart from that, I think this is a well written and informative entry.

Editorial Note: This conversation has been moved from 'Peer Review' to 'The Quaker Peace Testament '.

This thread has been moved out of the Peer Review Forum because your entry has now been recommended for the Edited Guide.

You can find out what will happen to your entry here: http://www.h2g2.com/SubEditors-Process

Congratulations!

HOOOOOOY HOOOOOOOOY!

assumes dignity

hoyhoy.