This is all out of date to some extent, but I guess some advice here is timeless...

Peer Review

A number of rules which will increase your chances of a successful submission to Peer Review. Of course, we're all human - so everyone makes mistakes. Don't worry, if your entry is good enough, and you're willing to spend time on it where it needs it, then it *will* get into the guide - but in my experience these rules will speed up the process and make it a more pleasant ride for all involved. There are seven of these, in no particular order.

1. Layout the body in a sensible way.

First, make sure the body gives a short synopsis of what the entry is about. This should be around 4-6 lines long, and say what topics your entry covers. If your entry is well-structured, you might simply include one sentence for each <HEADER> tag. Be precise: avoid statements like "this is a wild rollercoaster of an entry on copper", because they don't impart much information.

Next, mention any possible shortcomings. Generally, you shouldn't submit to peer review unless you think your entry is perfect and couldn't possibly be improved. This is never the case, of course - but it should be your mindset walking in. However, if previous comments have highlighted a weakness (perhaps attached to the entry, or when previously submitted), then it is normally a good idea to mention these. For example:

Previously my entry on copper was rejected as not being factual enough and containing too much opinion. I've reworked it and added more miscellaneous information, so I think that's solved now.

This is what you do if there are shortcomings which you feel were there, but which are now fixed. If you feel that there are shortcomings which haven't been fixed, then don't post to Peer Review. Instead, submit it to the Writing Workshop, who will be happy to help you.

It goes without saying that since you are submitting the entry, you want comments. But ask politely for comments anyway. Having a personalised request makes people happier and more well-disposed to giving feedback. If you want, or don't want, typos and grammatical mistakes to be pointed out, mention this here.

2. Read the guidelines.

Before you write anything, read these guidelines on what to write about. If there's anything that you're not sure whether your entry fails on, mention it, and ask in the writing workshop and the editorial feedback page: asking on both is safer.

Before you submit anything, read these guidelines. If there's anything that you're not sure whether your entry fails on, mention it, and ask in your submission.

Those looking for an unofficial view might find Jimi X's guidelines worth reading, and he has a number of useful links for aspiring writers.

3. Be humorous, not arrogant.

If you make the person who reads your submission smile, then he's more likely to review your masterpiece. One of the easiest ways to do this is to make your submission mirror your entry. For example, if you are doing an entry on copper, then you might end with:

And no, I don't want to expand this to look at the guys who run around in blue uniforms with truncheons and helmets. I have enough trouble from them already.

It can also be a good idea to be a little self-deprecating too - people who claim that their entry is a sure-fire winner are less likely to be receptive to criticism than those who do not appear to be so sure of themselves - so the latter will get more feedback.

4. Ask for feedback directly.

Firsly, find others with your interests, and try to get them to comment: So as well as submitting to the peer review forum, try posting threads in other appropriate areas. A good place to start is the Overwhelmingly Huge Guide to h2g2 Clubs, to see if there are any relevant societies. You might also do to well post to associated edited entries and threads, which you can find using the search options. For most people these will be the same threads and entries they should have come across when checking against duplication anyway.

The other, and the most important, way is to look through the other entries which have been submitted to peer review (and the workshop) - and comment on them, giving thoughts, helpful advice, whatever. Most people love to receive feedback - and if they come across your entry after receiving some feedback from you, they're that much more likely to post some helpful comments of their own.

The best entries to give feedback to are those which are buried a little way into peer review: about the 1 week mark. People at this point wont have had feedback for a while, so will be that much more grateful for any feedback you give them - and so that much more likely to reciprocate. That's if just being helpful isn't incentive enough!

Don't repeatedly 'fluff' post to your conversation simply to knock it up the list and increase it's exposure. This kind of tactic is easily recognised by Scouts and is likely to make them a lot less likely to recommend your entry. It is probably borderline acceptable to do so if it has been a month since you last received any comment, but any more frequently than that will reduce your chances, and make people annoyed at you. This is not a good thing.

5. Don't Recommend the Entries of Others (generally)

It is almost always best for the author of an entry to be the one who submits it to Peer Review. That way, sie is fully informed of what's going on, sie can frame the post in their own, personal fashion, and there's a lot less confusion. If you see an entry worthy of being in the guide - don't tell Peer Review - tell the author first, and let hir decide!

If you do submit for someone else, perhaps because sie has asked you to do so, or perhaps because sie appears to be taking a temporary break from h2g2, make sure you include a link to hir personal space, and mention hir name. For absentee writers, it is probably worth mentioning the date of hir last h2g2 post, so people don't expect massive instant revision.

If you haven't read the guidelines...

The following points are things which people frequently muck-up by not reading the guidelines. I write them here again partly to emphasise their importance, and hopefully make it less likely for people to miss them. But more importantly, to try and explain the why a little better, and what you can do to get round them.

Don't post incomplete entries, or works in progress.

If you've written part of an entry, but want comments before writing the rest of it, you have two choices. First, and easiest, you can submit the whole thing to the writing workshop, and ask for comments there.

Alternatively, you can find a self-contained section of your entry, and submit that to Peer Review. For example, if you have written part of an entry on wine, and want to get some comments before finishing, you might take part of it out to form a new entry, and submit it under the heading "History of Wines" or "The wines of Bordeaux". This isn't always possible, of course.

If you do this, and it becomes edited, then this will make it easier for the rest of your entry(s) to get edited, in all likelihood. You can also plug the rest of your entry(s) in the forums attached to the newly edited entries, and hopefully this will generate a bit of traffic and interest.

Try to write in the third person

Lots of people muck this up. The guide is in someways similar to an encyclopaedia - it shouldn't be that dull, but it should be written in the third person. Imagine a dictionary saying "I think you pronounce this with a hard 'g', but YMMV" - it just ain't gonna happen.

That's not to say you can't include personal experience - but put such stuff inside BLOCKQUOTE tags - and phrase it as "one researcher found that:" followed by what you found - or similar.

Don't submit unsuitable stuff.

For example, updates to existing entries should be sent to Jimi X's Update HQ, where they will be properly cared for.