Talk:I Don't Want to Blow You Up!

New York Times
Instead of citing the Windsor Star's interpretation of the New York Times article, I've directly cited the Times. (Note that the quotes in the Star article make it clear that this is, indeed, the Times article being referenced.) I've also changed
 * The content and artwork received positive reviews from The New York Times, who referred to the illustrations as "graceful".

to
 * The New York Times referred to the illustrations as "graceful".

because as I interpret it, the Times article is not a review, and it describes the content in neutral, rather than positive, terms. If others interpret this differently, please feel free to restore it. M AN d ARAX •  XAЯA b ИA M  23:55, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Looks fine to me, surprised (well maybe not so surprised) that I missed that.--kelapstick(bainuu) 00:13, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't normally spend so much time on talk pages explaining my edits, but here I am again. I changed the release date from 2007 to 2008. The New York Magazine article says that they "plan to release the book as scheduled, on November 9" of 2007, and the online version of the book (which I added as an External link) has a date of 2007. But the actual release of the physical book was apparently delayed. Google books gives the date as 2008, and The New York Times article of February 10, 2008 says that the book "is being released this weekend". I've added a ref for the date, because there may be some confusion about it; plus I intend to add the date to the DYK, and the fact needs an inline ref. M AN d ARAX  •  XAЯA b ИA M  21:40, 16 April 2012 (UTC)