This is the wording I'm suggested appears on the Peer Review page*. The text below explains why...

h2g2 is different from most other websites, and one thing that makes it different is Peer Review. PR is incredibly simple and easy to use, and most of the time it works pretty well, as shown by the steady stream of quality entries hitting the front page every day.

However, it's obviously not quite simple enough for some of the users here, so here are a few pointers on how to use it, aimed specifically at those who just want to comment on entries written by others. If you want advice on how to write or submit entries, look elsewhere, there's plenty of help on that.

Commenting on entries is incredibly easy and fun, but there are some simple steps you should follow to avoid annoying people.

(1) Click on the Peer Review Banner at the top of every h2g2 page - or at the left if you're using Brunel.

Simplicity itself. If you're not bright enough to manage this, you're not even reading this. To everyone else - congratulations! Read on.

(2) Read how Peer Review works

This now actually does include some advice on how to comment - as a direct result of this entry, in fact, and my sarcasm and pestering.

(3) Look down the list for a title that catches your eye

Simple this. The title should, if the author is doing it right, give you some idea of the content, so if it's your first time, pick something that grabs you.

It's worth saying at this point that there are a lot more than 20 entries in Peer Review. This comes as a surprise to some people, because they only see the 20 titles on the main page. These are the ones most recently commented upon, but there are many more.

You can see what they are by clicking on where it says "Click here to see more entries" at the bottom of the page. There will be a list of entries, and a row of little round buttons allowing you to select other lists. At the time of writing there are over 175 entries in Peer Review, and some of them haven't been commented on for over five weeks. So it could be worth having a trawl through some of these neglected gems and booting them up the list by dropping by and commenting.

(4) Click on the TITLE of the entry.

This will take you to the entry itself, which will then allow you to do step 5, which is the most important.

(5) READ the entry.

I can hear you all saying "DUH! obviously!", but you'd be amazed how often people comment on things they've very, very obviously not bothered to read. Imagine reading a damning review of a movie, written in such a way that it's obvious the reviewer hasn't seen it. The Daily Telegraph once printed a review of Batman and Robin, in which the reviewer stated that the character "Mr. Freeze" was motivated by a desire for revenge against the people who'd killed his wife. Well and good, except a HUGE plot point in the movie was the fact that he KNOWS his wife is very much ALIVE (although in suspended animation) at the beginning, middle and end. The reviewer slated the movie¹, despite making it obvious he hadn't actually seen it.

So, back to h2g2. Picture the scene. An author writes an entry. It's carefully researched, contains all the necessary details, and includes what background they think appropriate. They've done the GuideML, added links, and footnotes. They've spent hours crafting this thing and now they've let it loose into Peer Review. And Researcher X drops in and comments "nice entry, but I'm going to make a criticism. I'm cleverer than you, because I know Fact A and Fact B, and you haven't included them, and you should, and it's a shame you didn't give the answer to Query C, because I'm curious about it."

Now, if Researcher X is right, the best thing the author can do is say thanks and include Fact A and Fact B and give the answer to query C. This kind of thing happens all the time, and entries are usually improved by it. It's the lifeblood of Peer Review in fact. If they're substantial elements of the entry, the author could even include Researcher X as a co-contributor. This is a nice way of saying "thanks", if a lot of material has been given, or something brief but really, really, useful.

It is difficult to know what to do for the best, however, when Fact A is utterly, completely false, and Fact B and the answer to query C are already included. Researcher X is then shown to have decided to comment on the entry despite knowing nothing about the subject and worse still, not having even bothered to read it properly. Probably the best thing to do in the circumstances is simply to ignore them. Alternatively, the author can gently point out to them in the Peer Review thread that perhaps they'd like to read the entry before commenting on it, as that's how Peer Review normally works best.

In extremis, or if they've had a really bad week and are by nature a sarcastic b*****d, the author might go away and write a whole entry on how to use Peer Review. The ironic thing is this is unlikely to work, since the sort of person it's being aimed at is likely to see the title, go straight to the comment thread and say "nice entry, but why didn't you do it as a numbered list of steps?".

(6) There is no step 6

(7) Click where it says "Currently in Peer Review", to get to the right thread.

Important this - don't start a conversation below the entry. That's NOT where you're supposed to comment, unless you've got something to say which is really nothing to do with the path of the entry into the Edited Guide. When you've finished reading the entry, go back to "Peer Review".

(8) Read the whole PR thread.

It might take you a while - some of them get long. Most, however, are quite short, so take the time. This will prevent you later feeling a bit daft for repeating something that has already been pointed out four times by other people who didn't bother reading the backlog. You might find someone's said exactly what you had in mind, and the author of the entry has already addressed the point and moved on. So do read the backlog. You're expecting the author to take the time to read your comment and respond to it - the least you can do is take the time to make sure what you're saying hasn't been said before.

(9) Decide on a comment

If you liked the entry, say so. It's a nice ego boost for the author, and it lets them know people are reading. You don't HAVE to have some constructive criticism. Just a quick "this was good" is plenty. If you're going to say something nasty, try to qualify it. Don't just say "boring", say, "boring, because you use long sentences, you don't explain the jargon..." or whatever. If you didn't like it, and you TELL the author exactly why, they should thank you.

A note on tone - it's worth checking out the author's personal space. If it's their first attempt at an entry - be gentle. If they're a complete newbie, and they've made a fluff of it, point them politely in the direction of the pages where they can find help. If, on the other hand, they've got half a dozen edited entries to their name already, you can reasonable weigh in with a little more trenchant criticism², on the basis that the author knows how Peer Review works and won't take it personally.

If you've got loads of constructive suggestions, great - but take note of the next bit of advice.

(10) Open Notepad (or equivalent text editor)

That's right - open another program apart from your browser. Compose your reply in there. This prevents problems caused by sudden dropped connections, faults with the h2g2 servers, and all those other little niggles that computers shouldn't have. This only really applies to long, involved posts - a single line can be done directly into the browser.

(11) Send your reply

Click "Reply". A text entry box is presented. Now copy and paste your comment into that box. Click "Add to conversation", and feel good about having contributed your wisdom to the growth of the Guide.