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

A fabulous article which needs only a few minor tweakings or additions to make it truly brilliant. My advice here is made only in the interests of improving the product, and in the interests of indicating some of the things I think this article has not covered well or clearly. I have given a detailed critique of all that I can suggest below. My critical services are, as always, available to any who ask!

The general tone of the article is let down only by the fact that it tries to make vague generalisations substitute for encyclopaedic pronouncements, and by the fact that some of its constructions lead to confusion. An example is given by the first paragraph, which contains two themes but tries to extend them into a single sentence which is oddly disjointed. Adding a full stop after "feed the soul", and starting the new sentence thus created without the "so" would make a single oddly disjointed idea into two distinct sentences which follow each other and together segue nicely into the second paragraph. The first sentence could also benefit from the addition of the word "Often" at the start of the sentence to make clear that this is a generalisation and not a fact, but this is probably just a personal preference…

The second paragraph is partially confusing, because it postulates that snobs find non-rhyming poetry has the potential to reach "beyond the obvious and [attain] a lyricism of thought rather than words". Poetry is words, after all, so how can it be composed of thought rather than words? I think it would be better to substitute a description like "which transcends words" at the end of the sentence, to clear this confusion.

In the third paragraph, there are "in the main, three subjects", but subjects of what? An additional description of the subjects as "poetic" would probably make this clear.

In the fourth paragraph, the assertion that you "need a tortured soul" to be a good poet is made without any support. Homer was a good poet: what evidence do we have that he was a tortured soul? This sentence needs a qualification like "It is said that…" in front of it to make it more believable. The same qualifications would then also have to be applied to the rest of the paragraph, however. Assertions like "Success is…" are a little bit confident to be regarded as realistic, and should probably also be qualified. Some expansion of these ideas, to make clear why they are actually true, would be an alternative approach.

The only other advice I would give is that, when generalisations are given about "poets", the author should also provide some examples - as with mine above about Homer. The structure of the article is good, and it is about the right length - pending additions for additional information as suggested above. It is funny, and could be more so with a little effort.

Thanks hypoman. All comments taken on board and I'll take another look at the article in a few days!

Thanks for your comments - I have now updated the article - If you want you can take another look - they are only minor tweakings! As you will see I didn't take on board the criticism of the lyrisicm of thought rather than words. I have read many poems where it is obvious that the poetry was in the subject or idea and had little or nothing to do with the words. I would call this prose but there are some who would disagree with that. It's all part of the great "what makes a poem debate?" and I could never cover that particluar discussion in anythihng less than a book the size of war and peace - You did make me think though and I always appreciate that!

I like the updated version - it actually made me laugh out loud, in spite of the fact that I knew pretty much what it was going to say. That, for mine, is a sign of a good article! I'll have to compare it with the other article on poetry, now - but don't worry: I'll point out that I reviewed this one first, and take care to ensure that any comparisons I make are noted and adjusted for.

Regards,

H.

Thanks again. Your comments are very valid and I wonder if you would have time to look at another couple of articles. The first is one that I have rewritten after it was rejected and is at http://www.h2g2.com/a52462

The other I wrote recently and is at http://www.h2g2.com/a129809

Any comments would be greatly appreciated. Have you volunteered to be a sub-ed yet as I think you would be quite good at it?

I'll take a look, although I cannot guarantee that you will be answered super quickly - I'm getting so much work as a critic that I have little time for anything else on the network at the moment, and the Critique Fun Run has created a lot to consider! Thankfully, however, there's no time limit on the fun run, so I can prioritise things which people need or want more quickly: personal service is so much more fun than competition!

I have not volunteered to be a sub-editor. I would love to do the job, but I'd also like to get some practice in first. If I can critique or amend enough articles that other people are sufficiently confident of my ability, then I'll give it a go. I'm all for putting yourself forward - it's just that I'd like to be sure (if I was the one choosing people for jobs) that people can do the job properly, and that that responsibility works both ways.

Anyway, your articles are the next in line behind one I promised to do for Pastey. I should be able to comment properly on both within a couple of days (i.e. before the weekend).

Thanks and if you need to put my articles down as references please do so!

Re: http://www.h2g2.com/a129809

OK Ginger. I got Pastey's article done and now I'm on to your articles, of which this is merely the first I studied. This is a fairly short critique, because I only have a couple of recommendations here. It doesn't seem as though there's anything about the article that needs much work, and I can't see why it should be rejected on content grounds.

The first recommendation, however, is that you change the title of the article. Remember that the 'Guide is intended to be a reference work - even if it is a fairly irreverent reference work - and that people are going to have to be able to access the information you give them. This is a genuinely informative article, but nobody can know its subject unless they actually read all of it, at the moment. For this reason I'd suggest calling it something simple like "Edward II" or "Berkeley Castle". If you can think of something better that's all to the good, but it has to be "findable".

The other recommendation results from the feeling that the first sentence doesn't really sit well here. I'd suggest relocating it to the end of the article, or even to somewhere in the 6th paragraph. It's funny, but it could work better somewhere else, I think.

There is also one spelling mistake that I can see ["natual causes" in the 6th paragraph should be "natural causes", I'd say].

I'll be on to the other article shortly…

I've had a look at the Gloucester article, and there is certainly a bit to critique!

I haven't been able to do a comprehensive job on this article, however. My recommendations are all a bit vague at the moment, but I have a feeling that if I try to make them too much more detailed then the critique will be considerably longer than the article - and this is a long article. I think I'll have to try and think about it over the weekend.

My only recommendation in the short term is that, before submitting it, think about rewriting it on a word processor: that'll fix up a few of the spelling problems, anyway. Combined with this is the idea of taking a look at the article to try and eliminate the (extensive) personal references you make - both to yourself ("I") and the reader ("you"). If you can do this, I suspect you'll be able to make the article shorter and more readable. I'll try and give some examples when I actually review the article, but it's more a question of "how it feels" than "what it says", if you get my drift.

Regards,

H.