Template:Did you know nominations/Fair dealing in United Kingdom law

{{DYK nompage links|nompage=Fair dealing in United Kingdom law|Fair dealing in United Kingdom law}}

• ... that although Fair dealing in United Kingdom law is interpreted liberally, it is still narrower than the United States equivalent?

:*Reviewed: {{T:TDYK|Paul H. Bruske}}

Created by Ironholds (talk). Self nom at 06:18, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

:*

• Length of article is fine, and hook is correct length. The sentence that matches the hook in the lede is unreferenced (which is fine), but I had difficulty finding the parallel text matching the hook w/the ref in the body - perhaps nom can help by pointing me to the section? The article is quite well done.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:00, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
• :"is is done first by proving that the infringement falls within one of the three categories, which are liberally interpreted by the courts" - referenced to Bently & Sherman (2009) p.203 and "This can be contrasted with the United States doctrine of fair use, which provides a general defence rather than rigid and specific categories of acceptable behaviour" from Bently & Sherman (2009) p.202. Ironholds (talk) 07:18, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
• ::16px OK, after some consideration I buy it. Would suggest that the first-indicated sentence be referenced w/the ref in the sentence that follows it, as you never know when they will be separated by a subsequent editor (in which case it would no longer be clear that the ref applies to the sentence prior to the one to which it was appended). Good to go.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:25, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
• Now done. Ironholds (talk) 09:17, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
• I've removed italics from the hook as nothing requires it. Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:10, 20 August 2011 (UTC){{#if:yes|