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

http://www.bbc.co.uk/h2g2/guide/A604216

This short snappy article is less about the City of London and more about how I smile as I see a little bit of H2G2 on the skyline as I travel to work in the morning and leaves me with the pleasant conundrum whether it is a work of co-incidence, or the H2G2 underground.

Not quite what is being looked for. However if you are serious about getting it into the guide you will need to flesh it out in a number of ways.

The name of the Building is important, as is it's purpose and why the number 42 is on it.

The title is misleading as an article on the 'City of London' should have more details about the Banking World, Architecture etc of the Square Mile.

This is the sort of article that may have got into the Guide when it was embriotic 2 years ago, but even the experienced researchers who remember those days no longer write such non-entity articles these days, we always add suffecient flesh before bothering to but it into Peer Review.

I agree - sorry Back Ache

We're not trying to build an encyclopedia here are we? We're trying to build somthing with a little texture some light some heavy a lot like the book in the story we all know and love.

I rememeber an interview with Douglas about H2G2 and it was part of his vision that maybe whilst sitting in a coffee shop enjoying a nice cup of a hot beverage you might jot a quick artical down about how nice it is using whatever device you may have to hand and you may get someone replying "I here now as well, yes it is isn't it" and you realise there's another h2g2'r in the place.

Think about what my artical is saying beyond the words, I'd like to think my artical my get people looking up a little more and perhaps realising that someone might acutally share their vision of the world.

What I am saying is look beyond the size of the artical and wether it covers every possible angle and look at it holistically, is it enjoyable, is it satisfying, will it make you look at the world differently, these I think are the crucial points of a good artical and the point of h2g2.

It is enjoyable and I have written a lot of enjoyable articles on here. It's just not going to get through the editing stage. People can still search the unapporved articles on the Guide and will find this yes, but you posted it here in Peer Review which is for Finished Articles which people are looking to be informative entries to educate the other H2G2ers.

Yes the length og the article is not the reason me and Orcus have siad it is not enough, the Title 'The City of London' has in no way been fully encapsualted in the piece that you have written, and even the subject matter you have chosen has not been fully researched, do you think Ford Prefect would have got away without finding out the name and purpose of the building, or the reaason for it having 42 in 30 foot high letters on it's wall. No. He did get edited down to 'Mostly Harmless' but later on in the books the entry on Earth rolled off all the extensive research that he had done in the meantime.

Do you see the difference?

Perhaps if ford had submitted a shorter, snappyer entry it may of got entered as is rather than what he did submit which got cut down to "mostly harmless".

I'm a great belever in the KISS methodology, I've been burnt here before where I have spent a long time researching, editing, writing rewriting to still not have an artical accepted.

Back Ache - can I suggest you read this http://www.bbc.co.uk/h2g2/guide/Writing-Guidelines

hopefully that will give you an idea of what to write for this guide. Unlike the guide in DNA's book this guide is trying to be informative and accurate - I don't think your article fits very well into this.
As DD says though - its fine as an unedited entry - you can write anything for one of them as long as it's within the terms and conditions.

Okay, done that I have a tick against all of them.

Informative, factual and well-researched.

The point I would like to make about research is I have made a concisis decision no to over load the artical with information but to keep it focused and balanced.

The speed and number to the lift, the street its on, the number of floors it has , the fact the all the building machinery is kept on the top, the size of the swimming pool its basemnet and its temperature, that it has an observation floor near the top, that it is so tall it cant have a lift that goes all the way from the top to the bottom so you have to change lifts to get to the top, the architects, the former owners. these are all interesting facts but they deviate from the point which is their is a famous building in a famous city with a famous number on its side, is the number co-incidence (there was a range of numbers they could have chosen) is the fact that they choose to paint it in giant numerals (when the marketing of building doesn't make too much of it).

Its a short, well researched and I think well written artical.

Hmmm, well I'm afraid I didn't have a tick against every one.

Demon Drawer has already mentioned the title. An entry entitled 'The City of London' should describe just that. This article does not do that. It merely states that it is London's financial district then tells you that there is a building with 42 written on it. Not really informative considering the article's title. What about the houses of parliament, Downing street, etc. etc.? What about eating establishments, pubs etc.? What's its history? These are the things that need to be in an article on this subject.

It states that this is a monument to the answer to life the universe and everything. 42 is not the answer to life the universe and everything, it is a joke in a Douglas Adams book. Douglas Adams' himself got very frustrated with people reading too much into this, so this is most certainly not factual. I'm sure the reason 42 is in huge letters on this building has nothing whatsoever to do with DNA.

I really would strongly suggest that you reread the writing guidelines and read articles that do get into the edited guide. This article will not get into the edited guide as it is and I seriously doubt it would even if it the title was altered as this is not what the editors are looking for in the edited guide.
As an example of an article which was once in the edited guide but has since been demoted I refer you to this article on parsnips http://www.bbc.co.uk/h2g2/guide/A2593 It was written by one of the people who run the site and was demoted when the standards for edited guide articles were raised.

This isn't anything personal I assure you. You've submitted it for 'Peer Review' and that is what should happen here - your Peers will review it and tell you what they think. That is what we are doing.

As previously said, there is nothing wrong with this being in the unedited guied and people who so a search on London will see it so that's OK isn't it?

Back Ache,
It is quite possible to get articles on silly little things through the PR process and into the edited guide. Chose something entirely ridiculous and get as in depth as possible. Stay serious and it becomes even funnier. To toot my own horn, take for example my entry on Sicilian Paper Napkins.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/h2g2/guide/A592652
In order to get yours through, you'll have to begin by changing the title. Then write as much as possible about your 42 building. Even including the philosophical ramblings in this thread couldn't hurt.
Good luck.

I agree with what you say about looking up more, you can notice so much that other people miss!

Thanks Kazzikins for the support!!

I understand what your all saying, the problem we face is there is only one way an artical will be recognised and it isn't working, too say simply the reason this artical is being rejected is because it doesn't fit in with the guidelines doesn't explain why there are other articals that fall clearly, well within the guidelines and are being ignored.

Perhaps its time to re-examine the H2G2 community with a view to recapturing the "positiveness" that we had at the being and seem to have lost a little on the way.

Regarding the importance of 42, well, H2G2 is very important to a lot of people, I even met my wife through it! And if I got the chance to influence my company to put a reminder of it I would.

So, so far we have one vote that it definatly wasn't a work of the H2G2 underground, I'll be brave and put my vote forward that it was so we're at even-stevens any more votes??

"I understand what your all saying, the problem we face is there is only one way an artical will be recognised and it isn't working, too say simply the reason this artical is being rejected is because it doesn't fit in with the guidelines doesn't explain why there are other articals that fall clearly, well within the guidelines and are being ignored."

OK, where are these article? If they are in Peer Review then you have a valid point - us Scouts are not perfect and there are quite a few perfectly good articles that have been here for months. This is always a source of debate amongst the scouts and has led to a ruling that we do not recommend articles that have been here less than a week. My personal feeling is that this time should be longer but it was a clooective decision and I'll stand by that. I usually try and recommend at least one article that has been here a good while but with the best will in the world articles still get missed.
One reason for this may well be that nobody is commenting and therefore the article disappears down to the lower depths of Peer review - only a few of us scouts venture down there in my experience but it would be nice for all Peers to go down there and dredge up articles they like - this is how Peer Review should work and the reappearance of an artilce at the top of the pile will encourage more people to read and comment

If these articles are not in Peer Review then find them, ask the author and put them here. We cannot recommend an article that is not in Peer review and they are somewhat cumbersome to find when they are simply at a researcher's personal space. One of our jobs as a scout is to scour the unedited guide for good articles and put them up for PR but this is essentially a random process as you must happen across an author's personal space and find them - not a speedy process.

Remeber that just because an entry has been here months (or even up to a year in some cases) they can and do get picked eventually. I've seen articles posted to Peer Review last year get picked recently.

In addition - I like the fact that you are compiling a vote thing there . What I posted here is my opinion and nothing else - I think you will have already guessed I will not be recommending this but that doesn't stop another scout doing so - the whole thing is based on opinion - the editors may well disagree with me (although in my experience here I doubt it). That is why there a lot of scouts - a variance in opinion and style of article amongst us adds much needed variety to the guide. I'd be the first to admit the guide wouldn't be terribly acessible to everyone if I was the only one making the picks!

Finally, if you don't like the articles that are being picked and you think that you could improve the standard of article going into the guide - volunteer to be a scout. That is the way you are going to get your own preferences definitely picked into the guide (albeit after and OKing by the italics).

I like the idea of being a scout (I spend enough time reading articles!)

However there is a lot of pressure on my time so I couldn't guarantee the amount of time I could spend. Also it seems scouts need a good grasp of written English so is probably not a good job for a Dyslexic like me!

*Also it seems scouts need a good grasp of written English so is probably not a good job for a Dyslexic like me!*


Not so! Apologies if this sounds like a poor understanding of dyslexia (I'm sure it is) but others can correct spelling and grammar. As long as you can appreciate the content and the style I see no problem there at all. Time devoted to it is entirely up to you of course

After all I'm a dyslexic researcher with a whole number of articles submitted and apporved. The Sub Editors and Scouts even ocasionally pass occasional comment about the spelling of my articles, but they all know the probelms I face, partly because I have been here so long, and partly because they do understand the problem. Being dyslexic is not a problem.

Besides these days I take them out of notepad and into Word for a spell check before adding articles to the guide whereas I used to write straight into h2g2.

Hi folks,

It's been interesting watching this thread progress - many excellent points from both sides, and I agree with a lot of them.

As Back_Ache rightly says, one of the things that DNA thought was most valuable for h2g2, in his original vision, was the ability to be sat somewhere and be easily able to send off a few words about a place - a brief comment such as this one on Tower 42. The place to do this, however, is not in a stand-alone entry, but on a conversation thread attached to an appropriate entry: this way others can join in and talk about it. So yes, the comments are valuable for others to see, but they need to be in the right place.

We *are*, in fact, trying to make an informative and useful (I wouldn't go so far as to say totally encyclopoedic) guide to life, so opinions have little strength in Guide Entries. What we're trying to promote in Guide Entries is the presentation of facts and experiences, from which people can make their own opinions, which they can then add beneath.

Back_Ache, I've had a look over the entry, and as far as the rather grand title is concerned, it's not quite detailed enough, and rather a personal view. Other readers wouldn't really have much to take away from this entry after reading it - they might not feel the same way about it.

The City of London comprises far more than just this building, and your view of it. Now, if you were to write, as il viaggiatore says, a really good and detailed entry on either 'The City' or 'Tower 42', then you and others would have the perfect place to attach conversations about the feeling of well-being that they get from seeing the Tower whenever crossing London. These comments - in conversation threads - are just as much a part of the Guide as the Entries - the 'human angle' and opinions give essential flavour that people like to read as well.

You're also welcome to be a Scout if you like: it would only take up about an hour a month at most, and you're obviously well motivated to be a part of the Guide team!

If anyone is intrested in the City of London they might like to pop over to http://www.bbc.co.uk/h2g2/guide/F57152?thread=140504&skip=0&show=20

Hey, Back_Ache -- any responses to Chris' comments? Do you still want to pursue Peer Review with this entry? If so, what are your plans for working on developing the entry some more?

I agree that the guide could definitely use an entry on London -- I frequently search around for one to link to!


Mikey

Going back to the 1st. posting on this thread when the author muses whether the number 42 on the large building
he sees every day in the city is the work of the h2g2 underground or co-incidence. I think the answer is neither as the building in question, the former Nat West tower that is now called the `Life building`, and 42 being the meaning of life according to the hitch-hickers guide is all entirely academic as the number has now been removed. I would imagine the tragedy of sept.11. may have played a part in the decision to remove it. A glance at my journal dated 17/07/01 tells me it was definately there during the summer.