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

Entry: Cuckoo-Spit and the life-history of the Froghopper - A807699
Author: topher@cholesbury - U198188

I am submitting a piece about cuckoo spit and the frogghopper, An engaging little critter which I last studied as a project for A Level (sad lives we lead!) Anyhow I have done a fair amount of research but would welcome comment on how to expand the item, if appropriate, and if nothing else make a tad more interesting! A suggestion for any useful sources would be most welcome

I think this entry is excellent as it is - I don't think you need to expand it. The amount of detail at the moment is fairly accessible to an ordinary reader, and the style is very easy to read. It looks very suitable for the Edited Guide to me.

One little typo - a later heading has froghopers instead of froghoppers!

Azara

Nice entry, fully agreed!

First person style should be avoided in the Edited Guide, so 'If you do not believe me...' ought to be 'If you do not believe that' or If you do not believe this researcher'.

Please use the ... tags with *all* the paragraphs, and I think you're all set.

I like this one too

I definately go along with the ... thing for each paragraph, and I would also suggest changing 'Habitat' and 'Lifecycle' (should that be hyphenated btw?) to s and seeing how it looks

Thanks all for the positive suggestions and spelling errors which I found really useful and I have made adjustments accordingly.



topher

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

yes!

Congratulations!

Azara

Thanks to all of you for your encouraging words and for helping this one on its way (Hope this smiley is fit for the purpose I'm putting it to!).

Clearing the desk for the next piece of work!

Best wishes and
topher

Hi, I'm GTBacchus and I'll be your Subeditor this evening.


Topher, I've been allocated this entry to sub, so I'm just dropping by to let you know what's going on. The version I have of the entry is at A812828, and you are certainly welcome to drop by there and see what I've been doing.

The entry is quite good, and there's not much editing to do. I've added a few links, and tweaked a bit of GuideML and punctuation here and there, but it's basically ready to go. I'll probably return it to the Towers sometime tomorrow, so if you have any last minute changes, or any comments, corrections, or complaints about my work, this is a great time to let me know.

If anything comes up after I've submitted my subbed version, still just get my attention, either here or at my space, and I can tug on the appropriate sleeve to get whatever done.

Meanwhile, thanks for the great entry. I enjoyed learning from it about a new creature, and I look forward to seeing it on the Front Page!



GTB

Hi GTB

Just caught up with your mail on Frogghoppers.

Very happy with your work on this piece. In fact to be honest without going back to the original I'm not really sure what you have changed but it sounds fine. Only spot I made was in life cycle 3rd para 4 lines up from bottom whenre it says "...preditor it..." I think this was in my original and is a drafting error, the 'it' needs to be dropped, I think. Otherwise very happy to see this one sent on its way.

Many thanks for your attention to this piece and your empathic comments.


topher

That was well spotted.

That typo's fixed. I'll give this entry another careful read over the weekend, and probably get it back into the Towers on Monday.

The extra "it" is still in the version I looked at today .

Also, there's a typo in the related bbc link.



Amy

Are you sure, Amy? I just looked, and it's not there. Are we talking about the same 'it'?

On the related BBC link, yes, that's an error. I'll just pop over to Editorial Feedback and tell them about that one.

I must have been looking at the old version! I had both open at the time.