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

Entry: Brazil - A685640
Author: Athena, Muse of Philosophy, Cynic and Lurker! (Hopefully some other things to) -1+7+9*(3+0!)+0=42 - U179300

This entry says a LOT, and it took a lot of work. It came out well though I think!

Pheeew! Great! First entry to mention Brazilian Carnival!


Alas ...


... Looks like a collision of Giants here!

A689178 Brazil was recommended not a week ago, and contains a similar amount of work!

Tricky situation

The Peer Review page (where this conversation is hanging off) says:
"Check that there is not already an entry on this subject in the Edited Guide. You can do this by Searching the Guide. If you are proposing an update of an existing Edited Entry, then please visit the unofficial Update Headquarters instead."

Alas, A689178 is still out with a SubEd (and thus not yet *in* the Edited guide).

And, the two entries don't appear to overlap completely.

Could I suggest you join forces and built a combined entry? We could stop the SubEd in their tracks with a solid knock on the head or so

Bossel are you sure that's a good idea? I notice that Sciefyr is quite a recent arrival here at h2g2, and he did all the correct things, putting his entry into the Writing Workshop and getting feedback there before putting it into Peer Review. It seems a little unfair to suggest yanking it back from the Sub-Editor now.

The two entries are in such different styles that I think it would be hard to do either author justice by combining them. There seems to be more than enough in Athena's entry for a separate entry or series of entries on aspects of Brazilian culture and I think that would be a better path to travel.

, Athena! It's a pity this happened, and I hope you can re-arrange and resubmit a lot of your material - under a new title, it should sail through.

Azara

Umm, right! Thank you Azara, this should work

This was bound to happen eventually, and it's a shame it has happened to two such good entries.

For once I am pleased not to be a scout - aside from the usual typos and minor niggles (e.g. each person owes 780,000 what?), I would usually have no hesitation in saying this was suitable for inclusion were it not for the entry already heading into the guide. But the same is true of the other one. There is too much overlap for both to go in, but either would be worthy.

Frustrating for all involved, I have no suggestions.

Gif

Hmmm. This is interesting, I didn't see this coming as I did my search on other entrys before I put it in guideml, about a week and a half ago. I am really not sure what to do. I feel like pointing out the fact that there are some alarming likenesses in our entrys, and mine came out January 25, the other the 20 of February. Erg. This is annoying! Help? Please? Someone?

Hi, Athena!

The date of 20 February must be the date on the new copy made by the sub-editors: if you look at Sciefyr's original entry, at A689178, you will see a date of 31 January. You will also see two threads, one started four weeks ago in the Writing Workshop, and another two weeks ago in Peer Review. When you checked for Edited Entries a week and a half ago, his entry would have been in Peer Review.

There are bound to be a lot of similarities when you are covering basic information about a huge country like Brazil. I certainly thought the difference in writing style between the two entries was substantial - I suppose a Brazilian is bound to have a different outlook! As I said before, I think it's a real pity that this coincidence occurred, but I think you have plenty of material to make into a new entry or entries with a different title.

(I also think the main Peer Review page should remind people to check Peer Review itself, and the ComingUp page, before submitting something, but that's something to suggest to one of the editors.)

Regards,
Azara