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

You'd use a hyphen if 'science fiction' was an adjective - as I understand it, it's 'the genre is science fiction', but 'it was a science-fiction book'. So maybe that's something to think about, from the title down. To be honest, though, web writing is a little more relaxed than formal writing, so maybe this is a distinction that would only matter if the meaning might be changed, as in the example of the black-cab driver.

[To be honest, though, web writing is a little more relaxed than formal writing]
You've got THAT right! Drives me nuts how poor writing skills have become!

My Oxford dictionary defines "science fiction" as "fiction based on imagined future scientific or technological advances, major social or environmental changes etc., frequently portraying space or time travel, life on other planets, etc." It does not mention that "science fiction" is different to "science-fiction", but does have hyphened words, such as "glass-blower". So for now, I'm keeping the title as "science fiction".

<BB<

I don't have time to read this at the moment I'm afraid, but surely James Bond isn't science fiction? Apologies if this is addressed in the entry.

You could take that out, make it a seperate entry and it would have the added benefit of shortening what is a length entry.

I see you do address it. I'd still dispute it, but it's your entry.

Good entry.

A65947909 - for ease of viewing.

<BB<

I thoroughly enjoyed reading this Entry, BB

Just to let people know I've updated the Dr Who / Target bit slightly.

<BB<

Hi BB,

Looks like you've been doing a fair bit of reading! Congrats on putting together a fairly comprehensive Entry on a large subject.

This is a very long Entry (with quite a bit of overlap with my Doctor Who Novels Entry) - might be worth splitting into smaller sections?

Anyhoo, here are a few comments:

>with the changes frequently being referred to in extras on the Doctor Who DVD range

Are they? You may be right, but I don't recall anything and I have most (but not all) the DVDs and have watched most (but not all) the extras. I can only think of one novel-related extra offhand.

>refers less about
refers less to

>The last William Hartnell, the first Doctor, novelisation was number 145 when the last fifth Doctor, Peter Davison, novelisation in the Target range was number 113.

Could you rephrase that a bit? Talking about the last first Doctor could be confusing. Perhaps capitalising First Doctor would help? Or just refer to the Doctors by actor name (and explain that Hartnell came before Davison so that your point is not lost)?

>due to licensing issues with the original scriptwriters, the Children in Need special

Again, could you rephrase (or use semicolons)? It sounds like there are licensing issues with the Children in Need special!

>In 1996 the BBC regained the publishing rights to Doctor Who, and released Gary Russell's novelised adaptation of the Eighth Doctor TV movie, followed eight years later.
I suggest: In 1996 the BBC regained the publishing rights to Doctor Who, and Gary Russell's novelised adaptation of the Eighth Doctor TV movie followed eight years later. ('released' and a comma deleted)

>'Shakedown: The Return of the Sontarans'

The book title is simply 'Shakedown', and it expands greatly on the video. iirc, the video makes up the first quarter or third of the book, before the Doctor and his companions arrive on the scene.

>Neither of which were adapted with the Doctor that originally featured in the original story.

Sentence fragment.

>The first story to be televised...

Human Nature came before Blink.

Gif

Very good points, Gif - changes made.

I removed the frequently, so that the extras are now referred to rather than frequently referred to. I've rephrased the William Hartnell & Peter Davison bit, and made other appropriate amendments.

<BB<

"This was further confused by Target's early books having their television titles re-titled to fit the Target "Doctor Who And The…" format, for instance 'Spearhead From Space' was retitled 'Doctor Who And The Auton Invasion'."

This had already happened ('Doctor Who and the Zarbi' &c.) Do you mean that "this added to the confusion"? I'm still confused as to what confusion you are referring to.

"Essentially the order" Insert a comma after "essentially"

"It was from the Fifth Doctor novelisations that the artwork on the front cover were replaced by photographic covers."

Do you mean that the Fifth Doctor novelisations began a trend of using photographs on the covers or somesuch? The hundredth Target 'Who' novelisation was 'The Two Doctors' so the fifth Doctor's novelisations must have begun before that (in order to have been completed by no 113.) 145 'Planet of Giants' has an artwork cover, as does 148 'Remembrance of the Daleks' so Target reverted back to artwork covers at some point.

"These, though emphasising the novelisation nature of the story and that they were adapted from the television series, were never as popular as the stylish artwork that had preceded them."

Not only does this make little sense, grammatically or implicitly, but how are you judging how popular the (in actuality few) photographic covers were? Sales figures, market research, personal opinion? And, indeed, how do you come to the conclusion that the previous artwork was "stylish"?

I'm concentrating on the Target and Doctor Who sections because I have some knowledge on the subjects and just those bits are in no way ready to be put into the Guide. It is impossible to tell what is fact, alleged fact or opinion (partly because the entry is so badly written that the meaning is often unclear.)

This entry, as worthy as its subject is for inclusion in the EG, should never have appeared in Peer Review. PR is supposed to be a forum for near-ready entries to have typos removed, be polished and be discussed on points of style. PR is not a forum to put forward good ideas for entries that must be substantially rewritten before submission to the EG. It seems to me that entries are being passed through PR because the subject is interesting and to expand the EG.

We have the Under Guide for sub-standard entries; can we not maintain the integrity of the EG please?

Van
(PS I'm not picking on you, Bluebottle, your entry was in the wrong place at the wrong time )

Appropriate changes made.

<BB<

I assume that everyone is happy with the changes made?

<BB<

Apologies for our tardiness in chasing this one up but from our point of view I think we can say we are happy with the changes you made.

Van-smeiter, you have a keen eye and we applaud your high standards but please be careful that your comments do not come across as unduly harsh. We value the high standards of h2g2 but we value more the kind and nurturing ethos of community and collaboration.

Now, again, apologies for the delay, but are we happy for this to go yet?

I believe I've addressed all the excellent issues raised - does anyone have any further points they would like me to consider/alter?

<BB<

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!

Well done BB

I'm very pleased - I wonder who the sub-ed will be?

I'm hoping that this will be a talking point entry and spark conversations.

<BB<

this got picked before I noticed it.
I thought I would mention that sometimes classic Novels are subjects of novelization - for example I have a Graphic Novel of Treasure Island (that I borrowed as an e-book from library)retold by wim Coleman and Pat Perrin.
Also Photonovels are not limited to the series used as examples.
Some years ago I had one using images from
"Close Encounters of the Third Kind" the movie.
this was like a graphic novel except the actors and actresses from the movie were used as characters when they drew the images.