Talk:Douglas Adams

Section on Dawkins' book

I changed a couple of things, and lost the page reference because it changes from publication to publication (duh). The previous wikipedian wrote that it was on page 117, but the quote is on page 142 on my paperback edition. The quote is from the chapter "Why there almost certainly is no God", about two pages into "National selection as a consiousness-raiser" just after the first block-quote from the Salmon of Doubt. Matt Tait.

Influences/Influenced

I came in here via the category Pages with broken reference names and in tracking down the problem found that the first named citation was in the 'Influences' section of the Writer InfoBox. I've fixed that but I noticed Influences/Influenced in the Infobox weren't displaying and found that it was removed from the template on 4 Aug 2013 after a discussion on the Template Talk page. Given that it was redundant I removed those as well but there was some info it it that may be useful elsewhere in the article. Influences:

• P. G. Wodehouse
• Lewis Carroll
• Kurt Vonnegut
• Monty Python
• Tony Hancock
• Robert Sheckley
• Kenneth Grahame
• A. A. Milne

Influenced:

• Eoin Colfer
• Richard Dawkins
• Greg Rucka

References

Dirk Gently’s Holistic Detective Agency

The Monk and the Rock Painting. When trotting down to where Reg has left his time machine, the monk notices some ancient rock painting, obviously done ages ago by a primitive tribe. The monk spends some time reflecting on this. To me it seems there must be some significance, but what? Professor Bernard (talk) 18:54, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

Not sure... If you can find a source analysing this, feel free to put it in the article. SkywalkerEccleston (talk) 00:05, 18 January 2026 (UTC)

Coincidence?

The ghost gets Reg to use the time machine to put the salt cellar inside the pot. The ghost gets Reg to go to the place where Reg can get stuff to disguise the suntan. While Reg is doing this, the monk enters Reg’s flat in Cambridge. It seems a great coincidence that the monk is very near the door to the flat just at the time when reg is disguising the suntan, or was it more than a coincidence? Professor Bernard (talk) 20:32, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

GA review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Douglas Adams/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: SkywalkerEccleston (talk · contribs) 03:47, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

Reviewer: Joereddington (talk · contribs) 14:52, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

Drive by comment: Legacy could include the eponymous cockroach species described here: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3950428/

It's also on the List of organisms named after famous people (born 1950–present), but doesn't have its own article EmergentAnarchy (talk) 20:16, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

Some initial thoughts before I get the table out. Much of this is GA:NOT, but I think you would like a thorough review. It's a tricky article because a) famous person b) famous person who did a lot and around whom many legends have grown. The main moans I have are about some unexpected sections that are very detailed and others that have strangely little detail.

• I feel like the lead is a bit full. I get tripped up with the bit about the movie adaption. Rewording would be great.
  • I'll cut the lead down. Are you "tripped up" by the fact that the movie was posthumously released? Did you want me to note this?
• The technology section is confused between 'technology that Adams liked' and 'technology people who liked Adams'. Lots of it belongs in the legacy section.
  • Moved some of the technology section to "Death and legacy"
• Pictures seem great but I need to check the licences.
• I feel like the Career section should be more chronological - certainly the digital projects section needs splitting into the more relevent stages of Adams' Life.
  • I have rearranged the Career section to be roughly chronological. Let me know your feedback, as I feel that, chronologically, the section is a bit harder to understand.
• Seems strange that the personal life section has more about music tastes than family.
• Sources seem great, I imagine the Simpson book was very useful.
• Awards and nominations seems very light. If those are the only things he won in his lifetime then there must be more awards named after him.
• Legacy seems very light as well. Oddly so.
• Sally Emerson seems to be very big in the personal life section compared to the length of the relationship. There's a slight implication this was his first romantic engagement, which is unlikely to be right...

Proper review later.

Review: this article is being reviewed (additional comments are welcome).

1. Well-written

The article is generally clear and readable. It goes a little informal (and british) at times:

Examples:

• "Douglas was gutted " –> "disappointed"
• "Adams became obsessed" –> "Adams became increasingly interested.
• "Adams was thrilled"
• "Adams was a huge" – suggest "Adams was a devoted"

Fixing that would be great.

2. Verifiable with no original research

The article is heavily cited, and the sourcing appears generally strong, certainly for GA. It uses biographies, contemporary press, specialist sources, books, and reliable media coverage. I did not find an obvious verifiability problem in the material reviewed.

3. Broad in coverage

I think this is good enough for GA, but, per the above, I feel like there isn't the balance I would expect for Really Great article.

4. Neutral

The article is broadly neutral. It includes both praise and criticism, including Adams's procrastination, difficult writing process, abandoned projects, and criticism of his female characters.

5. Stable

Article is stable - I went back and looked at the version before you started work on it and it's clear that you have put a lot of effort in.

6. Illustrated, where possible

Yes

Okay, this is a big, well-sourced and generally good biography. Thank you for rapidly responding to the ill-formed thoughts above.

It's a big enough article that there is lots I'd change, and lots of work that I think would improve it further (I've mentioned anything obvious above), but the vast majority of that WP:NOTGA. Well done. I'm passing this.

• Hi User:Joereddington, what were your thoughts on my concerns that organising the article chronologically makes it much harder to understand? SkywalkerEccleston (talk) 02:05, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

I think a couple of things. Personally I find it much easier to follow, but that's personal preference as much as anything. My real thing is that, like many such people, he did lots of different things at once constantly and many of the projects, like many such projects, took ages to come about. This means that if we neatly section things off we get a slightly false setup. On the other hand by year we get a slightly choatic style which, for me, is more true to life and on Wikipedia it makes it slightly easier for good faith editors to help and harder for bad faith ones. Does that make sense? Again, at least partly personal opinion, and a third opinion would probably help. Joe (talk) 07:17, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

Okay, I will finesse the "Career" section and also action the other notes you left SkywalkerEccleston (talk) 13:52, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

Did you know nomination

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

Douglas Adams

• ... that Douglas Adams (pictured) described the sudden success of the Hitchhiker's Guide as like "having an orgasm without the foreplay"?
  • ALT1: ... that Douglas Adams (pictured) initiated a public wiki in April 1999?
  • ALT2: ... that Douglas Adams (pictured) has a cockroach named after him?
  • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Ciao UFO
  • Comment: Driveby nom.

Improved to Good Article status by SkywalkerEccleston (talk). Number of QPQs required: 2. DYK is currently in unreviewed backlog mode and nominator has 411 past nominations.

Launchballer 19:59, 17 June 2026 (UTC).