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

Entry: The Origins of Contemporary Geomorphological Relief in the Preservation of an Ancient Lake Bed - A835823
Author: Rita - U203958

Submitted for peer review.

Thanks for your consideration.

-- Rita

Wow. Pretty nice. Um, I'd maybe reccomend trying to shorten the title a bit. It is just a bit too long, methinks...

-Mystrunner

Oh, and I had almost forgot to mention, try to see if you can put your article in the third person perspective. It is one of the basic guidelines, and will help a bit, methinks.

Thanks, Mr. Scout. I think it may be third personified now.

Regarding the title, what do you suggest given the subject matter? Another question might be what if anything does this so-called guide style have to do with contemporary English composition as it relates to scholarly discourse or even casual publications?

Methinks I almost forgot, but avoided it at the last minute. I don't seem to find anything in Guide ML allowing for the display of inline images. Is that intended or just an oversight?

Unfortunately, images are currently not allowed. I have no problems with the title, and this article will serve quite well to fill one of an uncountable number of esoteric gaps in the guide. Good job.

Thank you. I'm glad you agree with the other peer review. I already got an A on it. I'll see if I have anything else to fill the annoying esoteric gaps. It's just amazing how those things seem to creep up on us when we're not being alert. Of course, unless you're like me, you have an advantage because you can hear them coming. &;D

It looks in brunel and alabaster but it's a bit wide in goo.

Alji, of the Red Dragon (Swynwr y Ddraig Goch) (conducting a sun sign poll @ A712595)(Member of The H2G2 Guild of Wizards @ U197895 looking for wiz kids to join, though you don't have to be a wiz kid just know a bit about some subject that you think will be of interest to others or just bore the pants off them. This is an equal opportunities space open to all sexes, ages and abilities)

Well, for the love of gawd don't put it in the goo then! Why would anybody want to put something in the goo in the first place when alabaster is so pretty and pristine?

Excellent entry.

Factual, informative, well-written, nicely laid out, correctly spelled, logically planned, fulsomely entitled, and expertly presented.

I didn't understand a word.

To be precise, there were several words I didn't understand. Eg caprock, capstone, mesa, to mention but a few.

From the guidelines (see A266131):
"Explaining terms well is particularly pertinent to h2g2, bearing in mind the global nature of our community. For example, a local term or television programme such as Blue Peter might mean something to someone in the UK, but won't necessarily mean anything to anyone anywhere else. So ensure that terms are explained fully."

Thank you!

And good luck wih this entry!

Bels

Hokay, would you mind explaining the term "sarcasm" and please be brief this time. Thank you very much.

Sarcasm is the use of irony to mock or convey contempt.

But I wasn't meaning to be sarcastic, just trying to put a point across in a light-hearted manner. Obviously I failed miserably.

I'm sorry you took it the wrong way.

Bels

Yes, sorry. I hope I didn't come across as cross...

Hi Rita...

Very interesting read!

Are "wasting processes" synonymous with "erosion"? Unless I missed it, you only used this term once, in the abstract. If it's synonymous you might want to use the term "erosion" as it's more likely to be understood by people who don't have a geology and/or physical geography background.

Bels, I think, raised a good point. It might be worth putting together a short glossary, either in the entry as footnotes, or in a separate entry if the descriptions are longer. I'm fairly confident that I know what a capstone, caprock and a mesa are, but many people probably don't.

Cheers!

of course I'm not a guide or ace or whatever so I don't know for sure what I think has anything to do with this process. But I am quite used to having to do some extra research when I read about a subject I have no personal knowledge of. I would imagine any work would contain some references that would be unfamilar to someone somewhere. If you weren't planning a book, you would have to assume they could find further explanation on their own. Maybe you could provide a list of defintions if that is all that is holding up acceptance of the piece. As far as the title goes, I agree with you on that one. A shorter title would not convey the full idea of what the article is about.

There shouldn't be any great difficulty about providing concise explanations of technical terms.

For example, you could write:

'North Table Mountain and its sister to the south, South Table Mountain, are mesas (isolated flat-topped hills with steep sides)...'

etc etc

wouldn't you also have to explain the concept of a mountain having a sister? I think if you went through every entry and provided defintions in parenthesis for every word any person in any location on the globe might not completely grasp, you would end up with something unreadable. If definitions are in order, which undoubtedly they are, or people wouldn't be asking for them, I think the refereneced list would be preferrable.

I realize Rita has already conformed to this "rule" that is not quite a rule, but in this case wouldn't she be justified to write it first person? She is after all talking of her own experience, and I would imagine few of the editors here would have the expertise to edit much of the factual content. Not to imply that anybody is less than intelligent, just that Rita is educated on this subject and most of them probably are not as much so. If you buy a guide to astrology, for example, does the reader assume you know nothing at all about the subject? Maybe certain "dummy" approaches, but most will choose a starting point that will leave a range of explanation that can be comfortably covered in the space of the editorial. I think a consideration must be given to the level of competence of your audience, no doubt, but we are not writing here for children after all. She is discussing her findings based on scientific observations. If an editor has not done that himself, in fact been standing right there beside her, how can they clarify the report of her findings for laymen? I guess the thing that keeps coming to my mind is this guide may have evolved into something other than what it presents itself to be. I personally would rather have the story, complete with conjecture and human response, from the human being it originated with. I can't figure out how editing that to make it fit one person's style, who if they exist at all they have ceased to have any input on exactly what that style is, can be useful in the context of navigating the universe. Rather it is the one person style of many people who continuously change that style to fit popular concensus. I can understand certain spelling conventions and punctuation preferences. I can't understand being obligated to change the over feel and amount of information supplied by the author's work. Of cousre nobody has to change anything they don't want to, and being in the guide is not what this is all about, right? yeah right

Thank you, Bel.

That was a much more useful critique than your original, rather embarrassing for you I'm sure, one. I doubt most English speakers would misconstrue what a mesa is. You obviously know. "Mass wasting" on the otherhand is a technical term requiring some gloss. It isn't synonymous with "erosion" but includes it.

Also, the methodology I'm advocating may not be as clear as it needs to be. A little feedback in that area would be useful. Does anyone understand what the point of the entry is? Do you understand that you can chop a piece off the top of the topography, so to speak, and have an rough approximation of more ancient topography in certain localities? Do you understand why?

I realize this isn't a seminar in geomorphology but I think most of you are not so witless that you can't appreciate the argument or the methods. So let me know, hokay?

Meanwhile, I'll see if I can't clean things up a bit. Since I understand I have a week before anybody gets to pick this if they bother, I'll take my time. And thank you for indulging my annoyance with what must have seemed highly humorous comments to some people, especially when they were drunk.

Mesa is not a commonly used word in Britain and should be given a footnote e.g. flat topped mountain with steep clifflike sides.
Saves people time looking it up.


Alji (Member of The Guild of Wizards @ U197895)