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

Thanks for your posting, afetr a quick reading, my first impression are:

a) It's a pity about the standard size subscripts on 'CO2' breaking up the line spacing. I know using the "size=-2" tags is a bit messy in the source, and may not fit with the general guidelines, but it does make the paragraphs look tidier (at least on my screen, which I run at 1600x1200).

I suppose some people might find the small subscript hard to read, though it is visible on my monitor, and in the context of the article, since I'm not talking about CO2 vs. CO3 or CO4, the number doesn't need to be hugely readable (unlike the footnote superscripts, which *are* smaller.)
However, I do understand why you may have had to make things more standard, though it is a pity a small subscript isn't possible.

b) Did the bold/italic stress on first usage of technical words have to go. Knowing I was bringing in a lot of terms people may not have heard before, I thought that being able to emphasise them on first mention might help people realise they were important, and make them easier to find for someone encountering them later on who wanted to double-check the meaning.
If it is at all possible to have the emphasised words in there I think it could make the article much more readable for a newcomer to geological terms



The paragraph :

"The water table comprises of both the underground boundary dividing the saturated zone6 and the drier zone above. Initially all channels are formed below this boundary, which therefore become flooded, causing rock to dissolve from the roof, sides and bottom of the channel. Thus, they naturally tend to develop a rounded cross-section."

Seems to have lost a bit of meaning - the water table is just a boundary, and the passages formed below it are flooded from the outset. Possibly soemthing like the following would be better

"The water table is the underground boundary dividing the saturated zone6 and the drier zone above. Initially all channels are formed below the water table, are therefore flooded, and since their entire surface is in contact with the water, solution tends to result in a rounded channel cross-section."

I'll have a proper look at the whole thing tomorrow, and get back to you.

Having fully checked out the new article :-

I really have a problem with the changed title, partly because it doesn't seem terribly accurate (I'm going through the basic processes, and ideally helping people to understand them, but I'm trying to stay scientifically accurate and avoid oversimplifying), and partly because it doesn't really fit with my plan of writing a suite of connected articles.

I think 'Basic Cave Development' would be the best title.

---------------------------------------------------------------

Also, in 'Sediment deposition', the sentence beginning
"When significant carbonate deposition *has* occurred..."

has partially lost the intended meaning, namely that contaminants washed *whilst* carbonate deposition is going strong become incorporated as part of the limestone part of the rock, as opposed to the distinct non-carbonate layers.
Maybe something like

"At times when significant carbonate deposition is taking place, relatively small amounts of other material washed in to the area of sedimentation can become incorporated in the future rock, affecting the colour or texture."

would be better.

Strictly, I suppose it's possible for any relative amounts of carbonate and non-carbonate material to be added to the sediment at any one time, but it is usually the case (for decent caving rock) that the end result of whatever processes have happened is a rock with a series of beds of *relatively* pure limestone (maybe coloured or made a little gritty by incorporated debris) with occasional beds of definitely non-carbonate material, but it's hard to get that across without being a bit too complicated.

---------------------------------------------------------------

I'm not entirely sure that footnotes help, when compared to including the text in the main article, particularly given the length of the page, though I suppose that's a matter of taste.

Cheers,
P.

a) I agree with you about the subscripts knocking out the spacing. However, in order for the article to go into the Edited Guide, it must adhere to approved GuideML. This is the tag.

b) I've deffered to higher judgement! I've asked the Eds as to what should be done, and the guidelines are that words can be italicised for their first use, but after that they will be in plain text.

c). The first part of the second sentence doesn't make sense to me.

Initially all channels are formed below the water table, are therefore flooded...

How about 'Intially all channels are formed below the water table, and thus they are flooded. As their entire surface is in contact with the water, solution tends to result in a rounded channel cross-section.' ?


d) Ok. I dont like 'Basic Cave Development', as to me it doesnt sound right. How about 'Cave Development - A Simplified Approach'? Then for your advanced article you could have 'Cave Development - An Advanced Approach'? It sounds better to me, and still is in keeping with what you want the article to say and allows development for later articles.


e) Agreed. (on both the text and the complications being left out!)

f) I like footnotes, as they are tidier than having brackets. I'm sure it says in the Guidelines that they are interchangeable, though brackets make it seem as if you're unsure of what you're writing...

Ok. I'll get those changes done! If you can get back to me on those further points asap that would be great!

a) OK, if it's a standards issue, there's nothing we can do about it.

b) OK - I think each word was only emphasised once. Is it OK to have bold as well as italic, or, failing that, bold alone. At least at the resolution I run at, plain italic doesn't stand out very well.

c) I think it was gramatically correct, somewhat analogously to the way comma-separated lists can lose the 'and's except for the last one
("I had chicken and potatoes and sprouts for dinner" becomes
"I had chicken, potatoes, and sprouts for dinner")

However, most of my grammar comes from a feeling of what sounds right, and your alternative does say the same thing.

(Maybe I should proffer this for discussion on the British English thread?)

d) In a sense, the article covers the development of simple caves, ignoring complex networks of passages, and the abandonment of passages as the water finds a better route, which will be the basis of a later article.
The follow-up article isn't really going to be more complicated in approach or technicality, or go over the same ground as this one in more depth, though it will rely on someone understanding the first article, so some title that could imply the first half of a Basic/Advanced pairing (or something like that) is what I'm after.
I'm wary of giving the impression that this article is dumbed-down, as it's really a serious description of the basic/fundamental processes. I'm not sure how best to get across that it is an article going into a limited number of processes in depth, and worry that 'simple' or 'simplified' might lead people to think I was covering all the processes, but shallowly.

e) Fine

f) I guess I tend to write the way I talk, so footnotes don't come naturally. I can see the point for long footnotes, but I think it's the length of the article that concerned me a little - in a book you can easily glance at the bottom of the page and then go back to where you were before, but having to scroll down and then back up on a screen can sometimes be a pain, but I accept it is a matter of taste.

b) No, the words can only be italicised. The use of bold tags is not allowed, unless its as a sub-sub heading, or a heading of a paragraph which doesnt justify the use of HEADER/SUBHEADER tags.

c) Excellent, will get that changed! As for the grammar, I think it was correct, it just didnt sound quite right. But then correct grammar sometimes doesnt sound right!

d) 'Basic Cave Development' to me gives the impression of man's development in caves. How about 'Cave Development - The Basics'? That way it doesnt sound wishy-washy, but doesnt conjure up images of man's development?

f) To read footnote, you can either click the link (which takes you to the bottom of the page, and then click the link at the bottom to take you back again), or place the cursor over the link, and the text pops up without you having to move the page at all! Just thought I'd say, and maybe get you into liking footnotes!

b) Awww - I thought it looked so much clearer with the bold words. I guess italic may be more obvious to people running lower screen resolutions than it is to me (I do hope so).

d) I hadn't anticpated the possibility of a caveman interpretation. I think your suggestion is OK.

f) I'll have to give that a try.

And with that it gets sent off to the in-house team! Shouldnt be too long till it gets put on the front page!

Well done P!

The start of the water table section is still wrong.
It should begin something like:-

"The water table is the underground boundary dividing the saturated zone below and the drier zone above..."


The water table is simply a boundary, like the equator, or a coastline. It does not comprise or include any regions, it separates regions.



The second sentence of the first paragraph shouldn't have a plural on 'formations'.
Even then, "The main *origin* of cave formation ..." would be a little odd. "The main *process* involved in cave formation ..." would be better.