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

http://www.bbc.co.uk/h2g2/guide/A618004


I've just completed this entry, and hope to have it included in the Edited Guide.

It's my first entry, so I would appreciate any comments and constructive criticism.

I assume that I just leave it here now, and wait to see what happens?

Our thoughts are one.

That's right. You leave it here so that people can offer their thoughts on it, and perhaps suggest changes. After it's been in Peer Review for a week, then one of us Scouts can recommend it for the Edited Guide.

I am probably not the best-qualified person to comment on this Entry as I'm neither a parent nor medically trained, but it looks like a very fine piece of work to me. It deals with a difficult, emotive subject calmly and sensitively. Well done!

This looks good, but maybe you should move the "what parents feel" section further down, or add more description of what SIDS is at the beginning before going into the emotional aspect.

Thankyou for the comments I appreciate the fact that is not really an 'inviting' read.

I wasn't sure where I wanted to put the 'what parents feel' bit. I think I may move it to near the bottom.

As for explaining SID further, there isn't really much more I could add. It is what I have said, and nobody really knows more than that at the moment.

Thanks again


Our thoughts are one.

Start off with "SIDS (Sudden Infant Death Syndrome) is..." define it, then move on to the emotional consequences.

I know what you're saying, but I can't really say it in any other way than I have, put simply it is the death (usually of a baby) that cannot be explained. That's it's basic definition This is one of the reasons why there is so much research, to try and find out exactly what causes it.

I am however, going to take heed of your previous comment about moving one of the sections. I believe it would be better near to the bottom, just above the info on The Foundation.


Our thoughts are one.

Ok, I see. I must apologize for not reading carefully. The intro does include the definition, but in a passive sentence. You might want to think about rewording it.

Hi il viaggiatore

I have amended the intro a little, was this the version you read last? I have now also moved the 'parents' bit to near the bottom. I can see now it is the best place for it to go.

Thank's for the feedback you've been giving, it's very much appreciated




Our thoughts are one.

Another risk factor is if the mother is younger than 21 years. This factor contributes to the statistics roughly the same as having the baby sleep lying on its stomach, and slightly more than if the parents are smokers.

A study identified the bacterium Helicobacter pylori as a suspect, but this remains to be proven.

Oh, and the list items work better if you split the tag: rather than using a single in front of the item, use this form:
List item

good entry

Hi there Bossel.

Thank's for that. I do indeed know about the age of the mother being a factor, I have no idea why I haven't put that in.

As for the tags... I honestly have no idea what I'm doing when it comes to GuideML (Do a test on my page to see what I mean) The way I did the bulletd list came from me copying the way someone else had. I would prefer to leave it as it is... Trust me, I'll kill the whole entry, unless you think it is important enough for me to alter it???


Our thoughts are one.

....Additional.

When it came to including theories, I decided against going into too many, as they are being suggested and dismissed continually. I decided to focus more on the suggested preventetive (New spelling?) methods instead...Does this post make any sense?


Our thoughts are one.

'preventive' perhaps?

Well, comments on Peer Review are just suggestions and, as it is *your* entry you are free to take them or leave them, no matter from whom they are


Bossel (Scout)

I think I may take your advice....and use the word preventive instead of my version of it.

So, do I assume then, that it won't make all that much difference if I leave the tags as they are?
Humour me.....I honestly haven't got a clue...

Our thoughts are one.

That should have read , but you know that right?


Our thoughts are one.
P.S.Thankyou for the feedback

If you're afraid you'd muck it all up then the SubEd will be happy to change the tags.

And there's no doubt that your entry *will* be recommended , the only drawback being that this may take a while because we're going at a pace of 25 entries per week (to match the 5 per day on the front page) and there are close to 200 entries waiting, (however, in different stages of perfection).

*Is happy to leave the 'technical' stuff up to those who know best*

I'm quite happy with my entry as it stands, and so hope that I need to do no more...


Our thoughts are one.

Well, you have this one left to do... wait There's a minimum of 1 week before a Scout can recommend an entry, just to give other researchers a chance to throw in their $0.02 as well

Yeah I know, I think it's great that you can offer your 2 cents on Peer review. It's a good idea if you ask me

BTW, hasn't that particular 'phrase' already been coined (Pun intended) and © by someone on here already?




Our thoughts are one.

I know that this is a very controversial aspect of the subject, but I think it would be worth mentioning the occasional abuse/murder suspicions that can arise in cases of SIDS. Haven't there been some studies trying to estimate whether cases of abuse may be masked by being diagnosed as cot deaths? I have a vague memory that the estimate was of some extremely small number in the region of 1 or 2%, but the very fact that this possibility can be considered must be incredibly distressing for parents.

Googling on "cot death" and "murder" turns up the case of an English solicitor Sally Clark who was convicted of murder in 1999 after the death of her second child. I can remember that the evidence made me very uneasy reading it at the time - a lot of the prosecution's case seemed to depend on a calculation of a very low statistical chance of two cot deaths in the one family, which didn't seem to allow for any unknown environmental factors or any possiblity of genetic predisposition. I think if I had been on the jury I would have voted differently!

Azara

Thankyou for that Azara.

I know of the case you are talking about, where the prosecution took the 'odds' of anyone losing a child to SID, and then another (completely random) set of 'odds' of it happening again, and then came up with a fantastic, and almost unbelievable figure.

There has also been a case of a Doctor/Scientist (Whatever), publishing totally unfounded evidence to suggest that the incidences of these deaths not being SID are even higher than the figures you have quoted. There was a lot of media interest in this paper, and naturally many parents were outraged, and more than a little upset.

Parents already feel that people are suspicious, and these kinds of reports do not help!

I was undecided as to whether or not I would include the propaganda surrounding this aspect, but I have to be honest, I don't think I have the writing ability in me to include this aspect and the emotional repurcussions, without turning it into a 'first person' style entry