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

@ - The History lives at http://www.h2g2.com/A89354

This article was submitted in June 1999 and rejected. The rejection slip asked for more information to be added to the yarn and once this had been done to resubmit.

Recently updated with the addition of an enormous amount of fresh information, in my humble opinion, it now deserves a place alongside other excellent accepted Edited Guide entries submitted by my alto-ego Loonytunes.

Like it, Loony...!

I'll have to have a more detailed look before I can comment further, but from a brief appraisal it looks pretty good. It seems as though you've got everything in the right place, including attributions. I'm a little bit unsure about the phrasing of some bits, and the idea of appealing to the researchers 'en masse' like the end of the article does gives me the heebies, a bit, but I'll have another look and see what I can suggest re this. I'm pretty impressed with it, though, even without making changes...

PS Loony, what's with the 'alto-ego' bit? You been rendered a eunuch while we weren't looking...!?

Hi Loony!

I've had a look. A few suggestions for this piece, with my editor's hat on....

First of all, how much of it is actually yours? I ask this because it seems to be largely copied from the ‘Guardian' article you mentioned, but haven't located for cross-checking. I apologise if this seems a trifle overbearing, but I can't really understand the way you've put it together, and I suspect it might be important...

Second, suggestions to the community of h2g2 to ‘try their hands' at naming the @ should probably be left to the fora - not that this isn't a good use of the possibilities of the internet medium, but the value of the article as an article (rather than as a ‘curiosity of the ‘net', for want of a better expression) is better without this sort of interactivity, I think. Note that this is a personal opinion, though, and I'm not sure how others might feel...

Third thing is that the ‘journalistic' style of the piece - short, one-sentence paragraphs for example - don't serve this sort of information quite as well as a more conservative layout. Not a big issue - just a matter of making bigger paragraphs out of the ones that are already there, but it might make the article easier to digest, allowing a more definite direction for the meaning of the piece to develop, etc..

Lastly, I suspect it might be more straightforward to eliminate references to ‘other countries' etc. - the internet is international, after all. In talking about ‘New Zealand's' options for naming the offending symbol, I think you have identified your place of origin implicitly, and the self-referentiality of ‘the country our researcher comes from' can be safely eliminated without sacrificing any of the intended meaning. Again, just a suggestion.

Incidentally, Loony, I have your article about Hangis in my hot little hands at present, and a couple of questions to ask - which address would you like my edition to go to?

Hypoman, my main man, It's hard to be humble

The bit at the end will probably/possibly be removed in the subbing process. I was hoping people might come up with some other names I could add to the list before the yarn is finally passed on to the subs.

Oops, double posting.

The first few pars of the article have been re-written by me while retaining the sense of their usage in The Guardian. I take your point about the newspaper paragraph style. Perhaps it is because I worked on newspapers for 30 years? I will rejig the yarn.

Hypoman, can you email me at [email protected] about the hangi yarn.

Righto, coming through shortly...!

If anyone is interested, the Guardian article quoted in the @ - The History yarn can be found at http://www.guardianunlimited.co.uk/Archive/Article/0,4273,4045858,00.html

It's in, Loony - as the actress said to the bishop...!

Congratulations! A fine collaborative effort, and an example to us all...!

Thanks Hypoman - did you credit the other researchers?

I do believe so, but you might have to check with Anna. I've certainly noted the collaborativeness of the entry, and the appropriate places to find other researchers' names are on record, but if you want to add anyone specific you'd better check with whoever sub-edits, I'd suspect...

These questions would probably be best directed to the appropriate forum under "what's coming up" (which is actually the same as posting forum comments under the article itself) since a) this article has made it that stage (congrats!) and b) that's the area that will be checked by Anna or whomever before this article is finished off and "published."

Editorial note: This thread has been moved off the Peer Review page to the entry's own forums, as it has now been accepted for editing.