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

Can I enquire as to why you removed the text of the Act from this article? My main reason for writing this was so there would be an internal copy of the Act that I could link to in threads. If there is a reason why it cannot be included could you put in a link to an external copy of the Act?

I noticed you moved the footnote regarding the relationship of Crown & Parliament into the main text – now I understand why that was done BUT the text was written as a footnote and in its present form dose not sit well with the text above it or below it. In order to integrate it better into the main text may I suggest that it is changed from
“The sovereign is the Chief Executive of the constitutional monarchy which governs the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Constitutional Monarchy is the name given to the partnership between the Crown and Parliament, in which the Crown has executive authority and Parliament has legislative authority. This arrangement was settled on when the monarchy was restored after the interregnum (1649 - 1660).”

To
“In the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland the sovereign is the Chief Executive of the constitutional monarchy which governs the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Constitutional Monarchy is the name given to the partnership between the Crown and Parliament, in which the Crown has executive authority and Parliament has legislative authority. This arrangement was settled on when the monarchy was restored after the interregnum.”

You will also note that I left out the dates at the end after the word “interregnum”, if you feel this needs further explanation may a suggest a proper footnote along the lines of “1649 – 1660, The period after the execution of Charles I and before the ascension of Charles II when England was a Commonwealth and without a monarch.”

Hi numbers - I deleted the text because the description of the Act and its implications were adequately described in the first part of the Entry. I was also concerned that the sense of this being an original Entry in the h2g2 style would be compromised by including so much that is not original to h2g2. I'll see what I can do about including a link.

Hi Guru - Sorry, I honestly don't think that makes a meaningful difference.

JTG

Thank you for putting the link in But I feel the editors have acted in a dishonest (although perhaps not intentionally) manner when they accepted the Scouts recommendation for this entry - If they were not prepared to publish the text of the Act they should not of accepted the Scouts recommendation - It is very clear from the peer review thread that my main intention was to get a copy of the Act in the guide - at the request of others I added a short commentary. Now all that is left is the short commentary

You should also consider changeing the name of the article as it is no longer the Act of Settlement but just a short commentary on it.

BTW john post 4 wasn’t a dig at you, I think that you did a good job of the commentary.

I was half expecting it to be spilt into two articles but ...

If I’m being oversensitive about this I apologise but I’m not happy about he result of the editing process in this particular case.

Sorry you feel that way. This seems to be a case where Peer Review hasn't really done its job.

My take on what the Edited Entries is about is that they are essentially descriptions of... well, almost anything. But it's important that they should be original. You see what I'm getting at? The text would have been fine, as long as its inclusion was in support of something. In this case, I would have left the text in if there had been some sort of commentary on the specific language, for example. It's important that quoted material doesn't seem to outweigh the original content - which I felt it would have done, in this instance. Does that make sense?

That's just my interpretation. Please feel free to take the case to a higher court if you feel strongly that it should be included.

JTG

btw Anna has added a link to the text of the Act.

The link was very much a second best option but thank you.

Now in this case what you cut out is that which was originally put in peer review the rest was added while in peer review as window dressing. why let an article through peer review if your going to edit two thirds of its content out?

I knew I was testing the boundaries of what was acceptable when I entered it in peer review and was prepared for it to fail but I was not prepared for it pass and then be brutally butchered. I genuinely believe it is a better article with the text of the act in as A690248 demonstrates.

This material was never meant to stand alone and I imagine very different from what I would of written if I was writing a stand alone article.

62?thread=625" >F615?thread=167525&latest=1