The following discussion is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.
Comment: While the book is unfortunately not viewable online, the Adams quote (which appears on page 3), can be corroborated various places online - for example, HERE.
Created/expanded by Presearch (talk). Self nom at 23:34, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
Article is new enough and long enough. (DYK checker tells me so. Redirects and moves from user space. woot.) Parts of the book contents are not cited but this is allowed under the WP:MOS. QPQ done. Hook is properly formatted. Images all have acceptable copyright or fair use rationale. I'm not sure how much more interesting a hook you can get out of this article with out being seen as potentially PoV pushing. Article reads as neutral enough to me, though I suspect certain USAians might protest and I'm not a huge personal fan of how it is written but that's not DYK criteria. Hook is supported by citations.
FYI, I reordered the reviews section to end on a quote that was more impartial between the two nations (USA/Britain). You didn't say exactly what you disliked, but perhaps this will help address it, while preserving all the relevant information. -- Presearch (talk) 19:11, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
Hard to explain. It might have to do with the boxes making things hard to read but ... er. Yeah. ramble ramble. Still DYK eligible and okay. Different ways to write and it isn't necessarily how I'd write. --LauraHale (talk) 22:06, 9 July 2012 (UTC)