Talk:The Dragon and the Doctor

Did you know nomination

The following 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.

The result was: promoted by SL93 (talk) 06:43, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that Barbara Danish wrote The Dragon and the Doctor in 20 minutes? "But, Barbara, whose sensibility was focused on dragons at the time, returned within twenty minutes with a book The Feminist Press still has in print called The Dragon and the Doctor. (Howe, 2014, pp. 143–144)

• Reviewed: Snowflake ID

Moved to mainspace by Bobamnertiopsis (talk). Self-nominated at 06:20, 22 January 2021 (UTC).

• Awaiting QPQ :) Kingoflettuce (talk) 14:18, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

• @Kingoflettuce: Done! —Collin^{t c} 19:15, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

• Sweet! New and long enuf, neutrally written, interesting hook, QPQ done. No discernable copyvio; AGF on the offline sources. Kingoflettuce (talk) 12:06, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

GA review

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

Reviewer: Some Dude From North Carolina (talk · contribs) 23:37, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Hey, I'm going to be reviewing this article. Expect comments by the end of the week. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 23:37, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Basic stuff and comments

• Improve the non-free use rationale for the image with this template.
• That being said, the infobox looks good.
• Lead summarizes the entire article so no problems there.
• Plot section looks good as well.
• Couldn't find any issues in #Writing or #Reception.
• However, I would add another subsection/header to #References. You can decide which one (see example 1 and example 2).
• With that in mind, references themselves are in great shape.

Progress

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written. a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): It is factually accurate and verifiable. a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism): It is broad in its coverage. a (major aspects): b (focused): It follows the neutral point of view policy. Fair representation without bias: It is stable. No edit wars, etc.: It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate. a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall: Pass/Fail:
· · ·

Thanks Some Dude From North Carolina! I've addressed both points; let me know if there's any other work you think this article would benefit from. Kindly —Collin^{t c} 17:03, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

@Bobamnertiopsis: The non-free use rationale was not improved. You can simply do this by copy-and-pasting the template and filling in several key parameters including the article, use, author, and source. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 17:27, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

@Some Dude From North Carolina: Aha, I understand now. Added! —Collin^{t c} 17:44, 28 March 2021 (UTC)