The Orion's Arm Universe Project Forums





Proof-reading EG
Another thing I noticed today - was reading through the Sadalmelik article. There are two occasions where the star in question is spelt "Sadalmelic". I'm pretty sure this is an error, as I've Googled it, and Wikipedia says it's spelt with a "k".
Reply
Yeah - I wanted Sadalmelic to be the OA Anglic spelling, but I mostly abandoned that idea because then every star will probably merit an Anglic name, and that could be a bit confusing.

Some stars do have a non-catalog name in the EG, but not all. If you think it would be a good idea to give every star a new, Anglic name (sometimes derived from their older name or names) we could do so.
Reply
Article: http://www.orionsarm.com/eg-article/48fdb8829e239 The version war.

contains this sentence:
Quote: In 4452 the militant Hager 5 explorer cyborg clade, under clademaster Innam Ho4 Hager, gained power, much to the surprise and chagrin of the ruling Mestheus Hegemony, who were forced to convenient a Coalition Party to stay in power.

I think the word "convenient" here ought to be a verb instead of an adjective.

It also contains
Quote:So although the vast majority Cyberians did not fight in any way, there were still quite a few hacker armies on the NoCoZo side.

I'm pretty sure there is supposed to be an 'of' between 'majority' and 'Cyberians.'

And here's another one:
Quote:In fact it was the NoCoZo insurance companies that - of course apologising profusely and suggesting that the Dominion should buy arbitration contracts - that started the actual war!

I think that that last 'that' is one too many that's.

In the very next paragraph, it says
Quote:This is an inevitable result of the way the NoCoZo works, a factor that centralists sometimes have power understanding.

I suppose that 'power' may be the wrong word here. Did you mean 'trouble'?

Next up we have this:
Quote:It was also to be expected that the Cyberians would equip the militias with state of the art intrusion AIs and cracker virtuals. What seems stranger was the Metasoft would provide technical and military assistance,

Metasoft is used elsewhere in the article as a proper name. Its appearance here after 'the' seems inconsistent, as though there might have been more than one but this particular Metasoft happens to be the one we're talking about right now.

Quote:But the locals saw it as a war of occupation, and sheer indignation that these centralist Archailect lackeys would invade their turf.

I think "sheer indignation" isn't part of the same category as "war of occupation" and probably shouldn't be joined to it by 'and'. Saying something like "But the locals saw it as a sheer indignation" wouldn't seem to be grammatical.

Quote:Only the relativistic fleets in the outer volumes were not effected.

This is one that just gets language geeks in a froth. The article used 'effected' where it meant 'affected.' They're different words with different meanings. And just a couple of sentences later,

Quote:Although they could not stop the viruses or prevent that some important systems were subverted, but they could, taking advantage of their centralist infrastructure, create backups and defenses.

I think this would make better sense with the word 'but' removed.

At the end of a following paragraph I ran across
Quote: This was also the first instance a major destruction of a Stargate Plex, an act that had up until recently been regarded as unthinkable and was in breach of all conducts of civilised warfare.

Do you believe, as I do, that 'of' should probably appear between "instance" and "a"?

The next one is this:

Quote:Although suffering outright losses as high as 40 to 50% of capital vessels, with huge tracts of empire fell to the invaders, and many of their non-relativistic forces stranded following the Gate blockade (admittedly the standardizationists were in the same boat!), the Revisionists managed to weather the original onslaught

The word 'fallen' should replace "fell" here, unless "fell" is meant with the Middle English denotation of 'cruel'; but that definition has not been popular for centuries. Besides, huge tracts of the empire being cruel to the invaders doesn't seem to be the intended meaning.

About halfway through the article I found this:
Quote:With many of the stargates either closed or destroyed, the involved relativistic fleets, operating in isolation, under regional commanders.

This sentence no verb.

at the beginning of the fourth paragraph of the section headed 'The Stargate Wars' I found this:
Quote:But although the large centers were well defended, the lesser worlds faired badly. In 4512 the small non-aligned planet of El-Sain 998-I was repeatedly attacked by elements of the Twelfth Imperial Fleet (2nd through 10th Ordinance Squadrons) attempting to pass through the wormhole at such high velocities that the existing defenses could not keep up. the defences were several years out of date and the colony lacked the resources to obtain updated monitors or mines).

The word "faired" in the first sentence should be 'fared' instead. "fair" isn't a verb. The third sentence starts with the word 'the', which ought to be capitalized. Finally, that last closing parenthesis came as a complete surprise to me because there hadn't been a corresponding opening parenthesis.

Here's a sentence from the next section:
Quote: In 4520 the neutral system of Peta Dromanis was attacked by Metasoft autowars pursuing a damaged and fleeing Dominion corvette, the Captain Whitkar, that had been granted temporary sanctuary in the system, with the loss of twenty millions lives.

'That' ought to be 'which' here, but the that/which concern is so minor that it's mere pedantry. More important, and jarring to readers of the article, is "millions", which should be 'million'.

Now, on to the fourth paragraph of the section on the voyage of admiral Tka Lett-Vorek:
Quote:Inevitably some of the more militant wormhole AI's betrayed the Interpolity Combined Expeditionary Fleet to the Metasoft home guard defence forces, and their following a series of rather bloody firefights and flight into deep interstellar space.

I think that "their following" should probably be 'there followed.' If it's to be taken at face value as a pronoun, it's unclear who's following whom, and what a series of rather bloody firefights has to do with it.

The second paragraph under the heading 'genocide' contains this:
Quote:The Softbot Cathedrals were destroyed by the Sagittarius Sphere in 4521 when they infected the Cathedral core systems with conversion weapons which destroyed their stars and planets - since then the whole region has been extremely dangerous for anyone not equipped with defensive transapientech).

Once again, this closing parenthesis came as a complete surprise to me since I had not seen a corresponding opening parenthesis.

Advancing into the section headed 'Guerilla war' I got a sense of deja vu, because the second paragraph of that section is completely identical to the third paragraph of the 'Relativist war' section.

Speaking of that, reading a bit further I got another sense of Deja vu because I had already read a section entitled 'Relativist war' and discovered another section (this one not identical) titled 'The Relativist War.' These topics might be so closely related that they could be addressed in the same section of the document.

The section named 'The Relativist War' however, begins with this sentence:
Quote:With the once triumphant Solarian and Negentropist fleets mired down in a hopeless on-going struggle to subdue the captured NoCoZo worlds, the Standardisation side (now mostly Metasoft, with their allies the Sagittarius Sphere and the Bourgatov Alliance gone and the MPA hiding behind safe frontiers) and fleets breathing space.

I was doing fine until I got to "and fleets breathing space." It seems as though perhaps there is a verb phrase missing, along with the additional noun phrase that would be needed before 'and' would make any sense. Also, in my opinion it could be improved by making it into several shorter sentences.

In the later section entitled 'The Peace-making Process' I found:
Quote:All of the main protagonists realised the war was not only unwinable but even impossible to settle on their own.

"Unwinnable" has three n's, not just two. And the very last sentence of that section is:
Quote:This was by far not enough to stop the war directly as relativistic fleet still sped through space towards their targets, but it at least begun the process of peace.

If that's one relativistic fleet, then we're missing a definite article 'a' before "relativistic". If it's more than one, we're missing a plural 's' at the end of "fleet".

in the section named 'Aftermath' I found:
Quote:The Version War not only an end to the Second Federation Ontology and the possibility of ever having a single unified ontology standard that everyone can agree on.

This reads like fragments of a few different sentences that don't quite fit together. May I suggest as a possible rewrite something like... "The Version War effectively ended adherence to the Second Federation Ontology. More importantly, it also ended the possibility of ever having any single universal ontological standard."

Next up is in the last paragraph before 'The Effect On The Inner Sphere': I found
Quote:A few worlds and polities actually changed collective allegiance, going over to the neutrals, and in fact many of the neutrals saw this has a wonderful opportunity and did not fail to engage in [post-war subversion

Just in case this BBS software doesn't display it correctly, the character right before 'post-war' is a left-bracket which ought to be deleted.
Reply
All these errors are now (hopefully) fixed; I've also removed the term Sadalmelic from the Sadalmelik article too.
Reply
Now that I realize it, the word 'Relativist' in the article about the version war doesn't make any sense unless read as a typo for 'Relativistic' referring to travel at slower than lightspeed. Relativism is appropriate to the idea of an ontological or teleological conflict but it's not being used here as the name of a faction; it's instead describing their transportation technology.
Reply
I always hesitate to dive into these longer articles as a copy-editor, because it seems to take a long time to get through them and spot/report everything, and I don't want to leave them half-done.

But I just kept hitting stuff as I read this one that jarred me out of reading enjoyment, and it's one of the more important historical events in the timeline, so I figured it had to be done.

Kudos, Steve!
Reply
The Relativists were a significant faction in the Version War era; it does not describe their philosophy, rather their velocity and culture.
http://www.orionsarm.com/eg-article/519d9d29e4531
Reply
The Version War was one of the first really collaborative articles on the site, including material from many different authors; unfortunately the process of stitching it all together was still rudimentary when it was first published, back in July 2000.
Reply
Made another find today. Was reading through the article on Haliki Movarian, and noticed that although he ascended in his late thirties, he's listed under "Famous and Historical Non-Ascended Personalities".

The article also mentions that some have speculated that he became the hypersapient artist named the Quizical, although Movarian was born in 7400, more than a thousand years after Quizical's appearance.
Reply
Sometimes these chronological errors are due to the difference between c.e. dates and A.T.. The site was originally all in c.e. calendar, except for Aaron Hamilton's contributions. We persuaded Alan (who was editing the site then) to change over to A.T. throughout, but he did miss a few. Even in 2005 it was quite a big job to change all the dates. Which is the best date for Movarian/Quizical?
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 4 Guest(s)