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

Hi, I'm the scout that came across The Weddoes entry (and your friend is right, it had nothing to do with your PR exercise - I'm a fan and found it a way down the Peer review threads).

I'm assuming that this is your first edited entry - although hopefully not your last.

Your entry has now been posted to the coming up list (http://www.bbc.co.uk/h2g2/guide/ComingUp) This is for people to spot it and have a mention if anything needs changing.

I'd be very surprised if the editors changed anything, as it was a very good article, and you are obviously knowledgeable about the band (and they will not be )

Good luck with the rest of your entries - if I can be of any more help, please get in touch.

Ad

Thanks for your kind comments. It is indeed my first edited entry, but hopefully not my last - I've got two more in PR at the moment, but they're both causing me some confusion at the moment.

As for your offer of future assistance - I may well take you up on that...

What's the confusion about your other entries?

I saw the Buzzcocks one, and it seemed fine to me.

Well, seeing as you're asking ...

The Buzzcocks entry is OK. Every couple of days I notice that no-one has commented on it so I decide to do so myself and edit it a bit. No problem.

The other one is a bit different. I wrote a biography about the band Furball which, because they weren't successful in any major way, I decided wasn't very interesting after all. So I withdrew the entry from PR and rewrote it as a 'guide to failing as a pop group' (with Furball as a case study) and reposted it. Since then Bossel has seen it and basically said it's OK but why don't I split the entry into two - one being a guide to failure and the other a history of Furball. My confusion is in what to do next. If I split it into two I'll be in the same situation as I was after the first posting, so I'm kind of stuck in what could be a vicious circle. One thing I thought of is to go to the Writer's Workshop and ask for advice there, but I'm not sure if that's appropriate. It's called 'Furball - The Band - A Case Study in Failure', not to be confused with 'Furball - The Band or How not to be a successful pop group' which was the first posting I haven't managed to get removed from PR (actually they link to the same entry). If you have any suggestions I would be incredibly grateful.

were you in this band at one time?

right - having read the article and Bossel's comments, I agree with him. Sorry - your band did sound like a good experience, but I prefer the article about failing bands. This might not be what you were after, as I can tell that there's a lot of *you* in the writing but it is an excellent read about how bands, rise, and then fail.

If I were you, I would re-work the entry so that it doesn't have the specifics about Furball, but hive those off in to another entry. I would also make your one about a failing band the priority (as it will get into the guide quicker).

Sorry if the scouts don't get there quick enough. We're all volunteers, and as you would know, there aren't enough hours in the day. For myself, if I see an entry that I stand a chance of knowing something about it, I will go there and have a look (hence the weddoes look and buzzcocks - which BTW is another excellent entry, but I only get 3 picks every 4 weeks ). If it's still there when my turn comes round again, I will definitely check it out once more.

So, the decision is yours!

OK. So if I cut the entry down to a 'guide to failure' what's the best way of going about it, h2g2-wise? Edit the text keeping the same A number, then posting it for a *forth* time, or, cut and paste the failure bits into a new entry, leaving the Furball stuff to fester for a while? (Perhaps a drastically reduced version of Furball's story would be more digestible.)

That sounds like the solution to me - - once you've edited it, tell the peer review thread - asking them for their comments again, and I wouldn't be surprised if it gets recommended.

A scout tries to get the best entry out of the author as possible. Sometimes that means editing it in peer review - but yours needs a lot of editing.

Once you've separated them, if you wanted to, you could also put up the Furball for peer review as it could still be a valid entry - you could even cross reference the two.