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

I see that you will be subbing my Western Sahara article. I am just creating this thread, so that we can discuss any questions that you might have.

Black Cheetah -

Thanks.

As this is quite a large entry, I'll probably do it a bit at a time, rather than all at once.

Therefore, don't worry if you see some inconsistencies in the overall presentation over the next few days.

Having given your entry a cursory glance, it doesn't look as though much is required in the way of editing. However, it may need a bit of tweaking to bring it into line with the Editorial 'house-style' (as described in entry A266131).

It looks to be a very comprehensive and informative piece: clearly a lot of work has gone into it. I'll post a reply to this conversation when I consider my efforts to be complete, in order to ask for your feedback on the finished article. I will of course get in touch sooner if I need to.

Cheers

Just a quickie, with regard to footnote 4, what is 'Durch' exactly?

I've done a search on Google, but it just comes up with the German word.


Cheers

Disregard last post! Just seen 'Works Cited'.

That'll teach me to use the footnotes as tooltips instead of scrolling down the page!

With regard to the footnote 'From Lecture w/ Prof. Terry', I can find no reference to this in your list of Works Cited.

Can you please explain: is 'w/' short for 'with'? Also, could you give some background info on Prof. Terry for inclusion within Works Cited?

Thanks

Yes w/ means work cited...

I initally had the lecture in my works cited but someone recommended to me take it out.... here's what it looks like:

Terry, Janice. “Algeria after Independence and Western Sahara.” Class Lecture. History 342. Eastern Michigan University, Ypsilanti, Mi. 6 Apr. 2004.

Thanx.

Black Cheetah -

Hi!

I have now completed sub-editing your entry. I hope it still reads okay, but there are a number of points concerning some of the changes I have made.

I haven't altered any of the facts as presented, although I did add a footnote explaining the Green March, as at that point it hadn't been previously mentioned.

Where possible, I have substituted certain words to avoid repetition, or removed them completely where a sentence still makes sense without them. Only very occasionally have I added anything, usually for the sake of clarity.

I have removed the footnote concerning Prof. Terry as it didn't relate to a published work (or at least I assume it wasn't published - by all means correct me and I'll put it back.)

I have slightly changed the order of paragraphs near the beginning as it's a no-no for Edited Entries to start with a header (they like a bit of a pre-amble!)

As regards footnotes, you do have a great deal of them and I sought advice on this subject from the Sub-Eds' newsgroup. I have left them in but the Editors may decide the 'attributory' notes are unnecessary and remove them. (They don't like footnotes much, as they force Netscape users to scroll down.)

Otherwise, any other alterations are solely due to the house style. If I've done anything that changes your intended meaning, please let me know so I can do my best to correct it. In the meantime, I'll keep scanning it for mistakes of my own - we Subs are human too!

It's certainly a very informative and comprehensive entry. I hope you're happy with it.

I knew I'd forget something!

'Polisario' is an acronym (like 'scuba', 'laser' or 'radar'), rather than an abbreviation and as such doesn't need to be in capitals - hence why I changed it.

I'm certain that's it for now!

few things i noticed:

1.The infant mortality rate of 18 percent, an average life expectancy of only 40 years, a literacy rate that is as low as 15 percent, coupled with a population growth rate of 2.8 percent, paint a very gloomy picture of the area

change "paint" - > "paints"

2. Violence and turmoil have been suffered here for the last 120 years, and it continues.
- >
From the last 120 years, there has been nothing but Violence and turmoil.

3. The latter actually involved not only Western Sahara, but also all of Mauritania, north-west Mali and much of west Algeria
- > "the latter" confuses me

that would be about it...

some of these may have been done by me...

I would like you to put the footnote and reference from terry back in as she has written numerous books on the entire middle east (which my defintion includes arab states of north africa). She is a recognized figure in the study of the history of the area...

beyond that,,,go ahead...

Black Cheetah -

Thanks for getting back to me so promptly.

1. The opening to the 'Demographics' section now reads:

"An infant mortality rate of 18 percent, an average life expectancy of only 40 years, a literacy rate that is as low as 15 percent, coupled with a population growth rate of 2.8 percent: these demographics paint a very gloomy picture of the area. The majority of the region's population is illiterate and under 20 years of age."

I was still unsure whether 'paint' or 'paints' was correct in the original context, since 'facts paint a picture' whereas 'a group of facts paints a picture'. Hope the new version is a lot clearer!


2. The same section continues:

"Since 1884, there has been nothing but violence and turmoil."

Upon reflection, if you say 'From the last 120 years', then in just one year this statement would have to be corrected, and so on for each additional year in order to keep it up to date. Putting a definite year at the beginning avoids this.


3. "The latter..." is defined in the dictionary as being "The last-mentioned thing or person". Sorry, but this avoids repeating the phrase 'Greater Morocco' immediately after it has just been used. If I didn't change it, I'm sure the Editors would!

4. I have added Prof. Terry to the list of Works Cited and re-inserted the footnotes, as requested.

Please bear in mind that the work I have done is still subject to change when it is returned to the Editors for the 'final polish'. However, I hope that you find the above suggestions okay and are happy for me to return your entry. Sorry about "the latter", but trust me: I use it regularly and they've never questioned it!

Cheers

It all works

except:

"paint a very gloomy picture of the area"
how about then "of" -> "for"

if you are going to put a definite date...

1884 works...but according to the time table there first problem was in late 15th or 16th century...I am unsure on which to pick...use your best judgement...


Otherwise ...its all set...

Black Cheetah -

Yes, 'for' works much better: I've changed it.

I've stuck with 1884, since the violence & turmoil have been continual since this date, and it also ties in with your original reference to the last 120 years.

I will now return the entry to the Editors. If, from now on, you notice anything else, please use the Editorial Feedback process - but I hope you won't have to!

Thanks.