Talk:Wikijunior Solar System/Proofreading/discussion

From Wikibooks, the open-content textbooks collection

Jump to: navigation, search

<Wikijunior Solar System/Proofreading

Contents

[edit] Proofreading

I think it is about time to try and determine what needs to be done to get this Wikibook "ready" for publication. I do appreciate the efforts of SV Resolution trying to push this along, and the efforts he has made to try and "raise the bar" on what needs to be accomplished here. We are moving into new territory for what any Wikimedia project has ever been at this point.

There is talk at Wikipedia of moving to a "1.0" status, where some articles might be "frozen" or protected, at least on a fork of the content. Similar discussion has taken place within Wikijunior, in terms of placing content perhaps even onto a whole other website that has gone through editorial review. This is something that we could consider, and perhaps make some propositions regarding where to put the "frozen" data. Admins have the ability to "freeze" pages so that it can't be vandalized by the usual suspects, and requests to make a change like this can be done either directly to an admin or on the Staff Lounge page (better because it is noticed by all admins, or at least any active admin).

The real question is perhaps where do we "draw the line" and begin the editorial process that goes beyond noting articles that reach 100% of completion? Citation is important, but so is simplifying polysylablic words down to simple English that can be understood by 8-12 year olds. Some sections read like a Wikipedia entry, and those needs to be significantly simplified before formal publication. As mentioned above as well, editorial culling must also be done to reduce the size of the book... at least for the 48 page book the Beck Foundation is asking for. IMHO there are also some POV issues that need to be resolved, particularly in regards to the weight vs. mass issues and the "is Pluto a planet?" question. How do we proceed from here?

I've been exposed to at least one successful "proofing" process involving many collabortive editors through Distributed Proofreaders. I would like to start a similar kind of process here that takes a bunch of material that is to be organized and preped for publication, to have some people bang on it a bit and organize the stuff to make it ready for formal publication. I don't see that anywhere on any Wikimedia project, and I suggest that Wikijunior become the "guinea pig" for such an effort. Exactly how we will organize such an effort is another story, but I believe it can be done and should. This is also something that is going to carry on into the rest of Wikibooks and ultimately the rest of the Wikimedia projects as well. --Rob Horning 20:42, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

At Project Gutenberg, proofreaders are just checking the pages got digitized accurately. They are not reorganizing text, checking facts, or even checking spelling or grammer. Not only that, but they are working from a page that is "set in stone", whereas we know anyone can come along and boldly rewrite the text at any time. So our process would have to be a bit different. --SV Resolution 15:32, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Where do I sighn up?Geni 10:40, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Missing stuff

In a general sense some of the problems include no apparent plan (at least nothing I saw) for proofreading for internal consistency.
  • Nothing on the variety of English to use for spelling and word choice and the like (do we want to intentionally mix "kilometers" and "colour", for example, trying to get some of each on each page?).
  • Also, of course, placement of punctuation within quotation marks, use of various dashes, and things like that.
  • Number formats (commas or spaces for thousands separators, do we use them with four-digit numbers with no decimal fractions, use and representation of common fractions (3 1/2, 2¼, 13⁄8, etc).
  • Spelled out numbers vs. numerals, in either counting numbers or measurements.
  • Units of measurement to use.
Have I just missed something? Or doesn't anybody else think these things are important? Metric1000 15:01, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
I've been trying to use American English (I'm Canadian) since this is supposed to be for Hurricane Katrina victims. But I've also been placing punctuation in quotations and using metric units. I don't know what the American preference is for quotations and punctuation. I just used metric because this is scientific, but then again, our concern is more in making this understandable than accurate.--Shanel 06:16, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
  • I have been using American English for the same reason. I have noticed the numbers problem; some are written out, some are not, and very few have proper mathematical notation (¼ as opposed to 1/4). -- Rachel 17:56, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
Metric1000 -- be bold. You found it. You fix it. We applaud. Go Metric 1000! --SV Resolution 15:59, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] "How was it discovered?" sections

We are missing How was it discovered? sections for all objects except Saturn, Uranus, Neptune and several moons. Rachel 17:56, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Length

Let's also hash out some of the basics.

If you seriously expect to get this to 48 pages or less, it would seem to me to be essential to reduce the moons to one module for each planet, with some of the information in tables. There is so much redundancy in the formatting that each individual moon module would take up a minimum of one printed page, and often more, wouldn't it? Metric1000 16:10, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Somebody who knows about this dead-tree stuff ought to be figuring out some rough guidelines for us to use in comparing the electronic version to a printed version. Metric1000 16:32, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
I just grabbed Wikijunior Solar System/Complete and dumped it into Microsoft Word. I pulled out most of the Table of Contents, all of the reference links, and a few other Wikibooks items and it comes to around 100 pages (standard 8.5 x 11 inches) in 12 point Times font. I could easily get it down from there by going through it and pulling all the photo captions. Publications are generally done in multiples of 16 pages. If we have to get this to 48 pages, it is doable, but it's going to mean reducing a lot of the content, which I think would be a shame. If 48 pages isn't firm, then we're looking at 64, 80, 96, or 112 pages, which leaves lots of room for fun illustrations, or making the page size smaller. Is there someone who can answer questions about requirements like this? -- Rachel 22:07, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
SV Resolution did say we are leaving out some bits of information in the print version that are staying in the online version. I don't know what exactly will be cut, but I'd guess it's the moons.--Shanel 22:39, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

We have been tasked to produce a 48-page booklet.

Nobody can answer questions about requirements (other than the 48-page one) because nobody has written any requirements.

I don't know what needs to be cut, either. We are going to have to make some tough choices. I think most of the moons are going to have to go. For the objects known to the ancients "who discovered it" can continue to be left out. A simple "people have known it for as long as they have been looking at the night sky" would suffice. And the title for "who is it named after" could be left out, since most of these have one-liner answers. Metric makes a good point about the moons modules. For some planets, this could be reduced to "major moons". Some planets have too many moons.

I know that some sections will get smaller as they are proofed -- some repitition has crept in. Some complicated explanations of interesting facts like tidal dynamics and why Venus cannot have a moon will have to go. Maybe wonderful sections like "About mass and gravity" have to go, too. Any section that is too complicated to render for an 8-year-old will have to go. This is merely my opinion, of course. --SV Resolution 23:08, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

The following set up would take 40 pages giving us 8 to play with

  • Title page 1
  • Copyright notice 1
  • Introduction/ 1
  • Our solar system 2
  • Sun 2
  • mercury 2
  • Venus 2
  • Earth 2
  • Luna 2
  • Mars 2
  • Asteroids 2
  • Jupiter 2
  • Moons of Jupiter 2
  • Saturn 2
  • Moons of Saturn 2
  • Uranus 2
  • Moons of Uranus 1
  • Neptune 2
  • Moons of Neptune 1
  • Pluto 2
  • Comets/Oort cloud 2
  • Kuiper belt 1
  • Glossary 2

Geni 14:03, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Copyediting issues

Rachel and Metric1000 above have pointed out several issues that need to be addressed. Key terms are already bolded and added to the glossary, but there is no policy on names of geographic features (e.g. Cassini Regio) I think these should in italics. Also, I think we should be using imperial units, even though this is a science booklet. If this is going to American kids, this will be easier to understand and visualize. We should also be using American English too. --Shanel 06:23, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

  • I like having both units. I like that the gravity section mentions your weight in pounds and kilograms. -- Rachel 18:02, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
Good idea. I like having a comprimise between proper scientific notation and what kids can understand.--Shanel 18:45, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
Actually, IMHO, listing weight in kilograms is not proper scientific notation...we would have to list weight in Newtons, and mass in Slugs (the Imperial unit). --Polyparadigm 18:48, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Moved from Talk:Wikijunior Solar System

I am currently trying to make sure that all instances of "the Sun", "the Earth", "the Moon", and "the Solar System" have proper capitalization.

Second, sometimes key words are in bold, sometimes in italics, and sometimes nothing. Any policy on this, to make it consistent? -- Rachel 17:21, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

I think bold is the most common usage in this book. I am in favor of sticking with that. Once the word has been introduced, it does not need to be emboldened. Every bold word should be in the glossary. There is already an astronomical glossary we can steal the definitions from. I guess, if bold means new word, then the phrase "they did not know it was a Solar system" ought to be changed to "they did not know it was a Solar system", to avoid confusion. --SV Resolution 23:00, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Section headings

Section headings need to be reduced to lower case (except the first word), such as "How big is it?" instead of "How Big Is It?" -- Rachel 20:04, 1 October 2005 (UTC)   Completed. -- Rachel 18:46, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

If you look at the full contents at Wikijunior Solar System/Complete, you'll see that almost all section headings are questions, except those in Wikijunior Solar System/Space exploration. -- Rachel 17:08, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

I wouldn't worry too much about it.--Shanel 22:41, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Some section headings, like "What is it made of?", replace the word "it" with the name of the planet or moon. Most don't. The section headings should be checked for consistency. -- Rachel 18:02, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

I'd personally replace the name of the planet with "it." The repitition of the planet name is much more obvious than the repitition of the word "it." "It" also takes up less space. :)--Shanel 22:41, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Grade Level

The link to check the text for grade level readability is great. I would like to suggest we aim for a Fog level between 5-6 for each section. That is a nice middle ground for the 8-12 age group. Starchildmom 03:22, 3 April 2006 (UTC) (sorry forgot to sign yesterday)

[edit] More on References

The current way of referencing each fact, especially with the partial quotes and footnotes, is very confusing to children. My son didn't understand "the mess" at all. While the quote reference style might be familiar to Wikians, it is not going to work in the normal elementary educational environment. The references need to be standardized and more like traditional bibliographic entries kicked up a notch with internet links. Teachers frequently use the bibliographies of the reference books kids are using as examples. Every item, even those not part of the books main subject matter, is a teaching tool. The squabbles over what one person likes more over another person, are not taking into effect the educational usability of the style. I will be bold and start fixing and changing them to a more traditional format. I will also be keeping the references on the specific pages, because for the web version they make a handy place for the reader to find links for more information. At least they do when they make sense to the reader. In the print version, they should be on a single page at the back of the book, with internet addresses written out when applicable.

Starchildmom 03:26, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Talk:Wikijunior_Solar_System/Proofreading/discussion"