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

Entry: English Counties, The Real Counties - A2501029
Author: Ianorth - U688420

The original author has Elvised - but Bernadette Lynn found this great entry and it could be perfect for use as a hub page for the counties project.

This is a brilliant Entry in my opinion, and well deserving of an early consideration for inclusion in the Edited Guide.

It is comprehensive, detailed, and laden with interesting facts, if a little over-long. The writing is clear and of a style employed by the modern professional historian.

My personal view of the 1972 L.G. Act is that it deprives our ancient land of its most colourful and unique names, such as Rutland (whose fame rested on it being the smallest county in England). And the 'loss' of the West Riding and East Riding of Yorkshire has left the strange situation of Yorkshire only consisting of a 'North' i.e. ' North Yorkshire' (no Ridings). They should have left the Ridings intact, or simply called the new unitary authority 'Yorkshire'. So now, even if one drives over the southern border into that county, one is immediately into North Yorkshire! So, when you are in the West Riding, you're actually in the North! Damned silly of the Boundary Commission if you ask me!



f.

>>This is a brilliant Entry in my opinion, and well deserving of an early consideration for inclusion in the Edited Guide.

Agrees totally

tjm

Incidentally, unless the author pops in after 18 months away, the sub will have to make any recommended changes. Just thought I'd mention it in case any Scouts see it and see that the changes haven't been addressed

This entry is truly impressive! Some authors just make you go , and this is one of them.

I agree its great

Hey Skankyrich

It's good... but....

I think that it's a tough read to be honest. It covers every possible point relating to English Counties, but - oh my goodness - the sentences are awfully long, convoluted and lacking in punctuation.

It could really do with somebody going through the entire entry, Plain Englishing it.

Also headers please... it would make it more digestible.

And what does the title mean? What's "real" about the English Counties - which ones are "real"?

I'm not sure about the tone of the final parts of the entry, which implies critisism of the current system of Counties/local government boundaries. The rest of the entry is made up of factual information and the opinions at the end don't quite fit into the rest of it. What do others think?

I have a lot of wee typos and grammatical comments, but I'm not going to waste your time with those if there's a chance that the whole thing can be Plain Englished

Fb

Absolutely agree with Frenchbean there, although this does contain some useful info for my own Shire project, so I'm going to glean, re-phrase and pick the meat off the bones

Plus add the author as contributing researcher of course


GB

Thanks GB I thought I was going to be out on a limb there

Skank - if you need a hand with Plain Englishing, it's a bit of a speciality of mine (professionally). Let me know if I can help

I've already offered to sub-edit this when it goes through, as it will need a little more tweaking than the average entry (if the author is not about, he can't make changes). Part of that is obviously taking out the unweildy sentences, sorting the grammar and punctuation, and adding GuideML. As for re-writing the whole entry - I don't think that's necessary and would take away the 'style employed by the modern professional historian'. Some parts need adjusting, yes, but as a whole I didn't find it tough to read at all. It needs a thorough sub-job to break up sentences like:

Forty eight new county councils were created and came into being in England in 1889 following the Act and in the main were based on and mirrored the ancient county boundaries, though there were only thirty nine historic English counties, with the exception of some minor alterations to boundaries over time particularly where detached areas of counties existed and where a town or settlement had grown over two or more historical county boundaries.

Rather than an entire re-write.

I've had two entries to sub that were recommended with the author still about that were in far, far worse shape than this you know

Perhaps a title change like: The Development of the British County? It makes a little more sense.

This looks like it would be fantastic with a little work. Good luck with it, Skankyrich!

Sorry, the Development of the *English* County.

Yes, I think a name change would certainly be a priority

Shouldn't major tidying up happen while it can still be PR-ed? I thought that was the whole point of this forum? It's the opportunity for other Researchers to Peer Review an entry before it gets picked. There is a heap of stuff in there that I'd like to comment on - not just typos - which I shan't be able to do if it is picked before the Plain Englishing is done.

What is the point in getting an Entry to almost Edited Guide state for PR if it can be completely changed in the sub-ed phase?

I'd like some Italics feedback on this point please. If there are entries getting through PR in a worse state than this one, I have grave concerns about the value of the PR process.

Fb

You have a point there, Frenchbean.

I've posted to Editorial Feedback and hope I'll get a response early next week.

In the meantime, I think we have to agree to disagree Skank. To tidy up sentences, you inevitably end up changing the emphasis of some of them at least. And I think that Peerers should have the opportunity to comment when that process is complete.

That's my

Fb

I could remove it from PR, copy the text and paste it as a new entry and remove my name from it when it leaves PR, if you'd rather. All you had to do was say you weren't happy with the idea, which to be fair has been around since post 1. I didn't even realise we *were* disagreeing to any major extent.

Oh b*gger; I didn't mean to make this a huge deal I only disagree with what you say in post 10. I like the concept of the entry and agree that it will serve as a great hub for the English bit of the Counties project

What I *think* we disagree on is the purpose of PR and sub-eds. As far as I was aware, sub-eds do the basic tidying up of entries before they go into the EG. The work that I believe needs to be done on this entry is a bit more than basic and should therefore be in PR once it's done.

This is my opinion and I really didn't mean to sound so snotty.

Fb

I've taken it out, anyway.

We agree on the roles of Scouts, PR and sub-eds, as far as I'm aware.

This was spotted and suggested on the 'Help Build the h2g2 Guide to the UK' thread on the h2g2 Announcements Page. The general concensus was that it would serve as a perfect hub page for the Counties and wouldn't need much work. So, being the good chap that I am, I submitted it for Peer Review with the suggestion that I would handle any changes that came out of the thread. Sorry if I didn't follow the correct protocol, but this seemed the right way to proceed so that I wouldn't be credited with writing it, only the editing.

Subs are encouraged to contact the author for any final changes before it gets returned, which I always do. In the absence of an author to check, it would be natural for me to post on the PR thread so that anyone who had commented could have a final scan on the author's behalf - thus allowing interested Scouts to comment on the final entry as well as the pre-subbing version, which doesn't normally happen. But if it's better for me to change it as every comment comes up, that's fine; the rewrite and PR process will just have to wait until the Devon entry is finished, that's all.

No problem, anyway; I know you weren't being snotty and are entitled to defend your opinion

I understand now

As for protocol - I haven't a clue to be honest. I feel bad that you've taken it out of PR now.. based on my misunderstanding.

Sorry Skank