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

Entry: The United States of America - Intended Update - A2965133
Author: Jodan - What's mined is yours... UnderGuide at A1103329 - U201497

Intended to replace A260461 - An entry I have long disliked. Often I consciously didn't link to that entry because it should be better, so I decided to do something about it.

I might not have emphasized certain points of the original entry (which some people seemed to like in the forums under the entry)... NASCAR races, Cheese Whiz... a bad foreign policy etc but that entry seemed like it had a strange perspective so I've tried to stay away from perspectives like that in this entry, because if I went into that and tried to make it balanced it would be a nearly impossible task. With that idea, I made the Things that are American section very broad and yes, a bit rambling.

Lastly, I debated over and over the best opening quote. The Pinsky quote is eloquent and brilliant, but there are lots more.



PS - I'd like some h2g2 historian to confirm I've selfishly linked to more of my own entries in this than anyone before me...

At 12,500+ words, I think this needs to be split into some component entries.


Mikey

Plus, since the vast vast majority of this appears to be entirely new material, I'd think Peer Review perhaps a more appropriate home than the Update Forum. If you do swing it over there, however, please drop a note here so we can follow along.


Mikey

"vast vast majority"

Actually, there's nothing directly from the original entry. I did use it to make sure I didn't take the subject too seriously, but that's it.

I don't like the policy that new entries should be put in Peer Review. I believe all entries to replace others should go through the Update Forum. Plus it's occasionally confusing for italics. I know a few occasions in which the italics got a bit steamed as they processed an update as a regular entry coming from PR.

As for seperate entries, I came very close to seperating the History section into a new entry, but if I wrote a History of America entry, it would be impossible to please everyone with enough detail. But if it's truly necessary, I'll seperate them...

Entries that go through the Update Forum don't get anywhere near the public scrutiny that entries in PR do, nor do they receive any attention from a sub-ed, nor even as much italic polish as a PR entry does.

I just can't see it being all kosher to but a gigantic, 12K+ word, completely new entry into the Edited Guide without going through the same vetting that every other entry has had to go through.

That's part of the problem with the Update Forum. Putting updates into PR discourages the use of it, which causes less comments - hence less public scrutiny.

I'm in no rush...

It's not just the public scrutiny, it's the lack of editorial oversight from both subs and italics.

Our original proposal for the Update Forum included the use of sub, but this was nixed by TPTB.

Thus far, we've dealt with that by posting all the nit-picky changes that need to be made here in the update thread -- but no way am I doing that for a 12K+ word entry.

Hi, Jodan!

I can see why you don't like the original entry! However, my first reaction to this one is that it is *far* too long. The first half doesn't seem to have much focus. The history section is enormous, and could make lots of entries in itself.

I think it would be better to split it up into separate linked entries, and submit it as a project to Peer Review.


Azara

Jodan, I take my hat off to you - it's excellent! Well-written and comprehensive and all.

But I agree with Azara. It *is* too long. It's probably best if some of the sections become entries in their own right.

Anyone got any ideas about the best way to do that?

"Thus far, we've dealt with that by posting all the nit-picky changes that need to be made here in the update thread -- but no way am I doing that for a 12K+ word entry. "

I proofread this one in fact... ran it through spell check (a few times... isn't it frustrating when you press ignore when you don't want to and have to go through everything again?) and read it over a few times. I don't know how effective this was, but I know I spotted a lot of typos. Normally, I hate reading my own writing, but I had a lot of fun writing this thing, so I was able to force myself to read it over.

"The first half doesn't seem to have much focus. The history section is enormous, and could make lots of entries in itself.

I think it would be better to split it up into separate linked entries, and submit it as a project to Peer Review."

By the first half, do you mean the Things that are American section? It's not really encyclopediatic... you can't make a section on that topic that is.

As for splitting it up, I'm open to that. I suppose that the states and things in America could be one entry, the things that are American could be one and the history could be one, that is if it's not too long to be split up itself. It's about 6,000 words on its own, and I've written single entries much longer than that without much complaint about length. It would of course be necessary to have a single 'United States of America' entry, which would replace the older one for link purposes.

But I would only move it to PR if an italic directly asked me to (it's an issue of principle, not arrogance, I assure you ). I'll try to look this over this evening, but I'm making no promises. Game Two of the World Series is being played tonight after all.

Jodan, most of us *do* proofread our own entries. That certainly doesn't give us an exemption from having the entry worked on by a subeditor and/or house editor.

Entries are only supposed to be here in the Update Forum if the amount of new material is small enough that it seems reasonable to forego the subediting stage. I just can't imagine why that would be the case here -- there are processes that *every other* new entry has had to go through to get into the Edited Guide, and I can't think of any valid reasons why an exception should be made for this one.

Most of you do. I try to, honestly, but I end up putting it off so long I usually end up putting it up for review with an apology. I'm somewhat proud of myself for actually doing the work, so I thought I'd point it out.

Let me be clear about this.
I'm not looking for an exception. I think all update entries should go to the Update Forum, not PR. I think with a few emails from italics on the scout group to encourage comments there, it will be about as heavily trafficked as PR. It's one of those big picture things I usually dislike.

Jodan said "That's part of the problem with the Update Forum."


I don't see it as a problem.



I agree with Mikey about the functioning of the Update Forum. I also think this kind of discussion might be more profitably engaged in the DNA Hub. Perhaps the italics will pay attention to it here, so I will register my objection to Jordan's interpretation.



I also like the original entry, it does what it says, and to my American mind there's no need to overwrite it. Jodan's proposed Update could easily be given a different title (or titles) and go into the Guide separately simply because his Entry is so very different.

I'm not doing that. I intensely dislike the old entry. The purpose of this is to replace that one. If that's not going to happen, I'll remove this from review now.

(by the way, updates that go through PR often suffer that same fate of not actually updating the intended entry, and so there is a good chance an italic will make a mistake in that process if the sub-editor doesn't remind them)

I agree that some entry should replace the existing entry, but not this one as it stands - it's too long. You should split this up into three: the overview, the list of states and the history. These should all be cross-linked to each other. Put all three into Peer Review, with the note that the overview is to replace the existing entry as an update.

Jodan, you don't have to wait for an Editorial Decision on this. The Editors have already clearly stated on many occasions that Peer Review is the appropriate forum for new material.

If you don't like that policy, you should start a discussion at Editorial Feedback.

Put it this way, it's a competely new entry. I'd hate to update this only to then be offered a stack of new material on the subject.

Peer Review isn't just for fault-finding; it's to ensure we give each entry the best possible chance for furtehr collaboration.

Splendid work, as ever, Jodan, but the Update scheme is confusing at best, so I'd really prefer not to set a precedent here. Pop it out of here and into PR for us, and we'll all be in a better position to make sure we don't miss anything important. Gnomon's suggestion of making it three entries is good, but if you prefer, we can do that in-house at the editing stage, as and when it's accepted.

Jims

Thanks for popping in, Jimster!


Mikey

I'll take it out of review, but I'm not going to be putting it into PR. On second thought, it's just not worth the headache.

Who is going to write the Update for the USA entry, then?

There are lots of Americans out there. I might still put this in PR later on when I've got more patience and time.