Talk:The Dragon and the Doctor

The Dragon and the Doctor has been listed as one of the Language and literature good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Review: March 28, 2021. (Reviewed version).

A fact from The Dragon and the Doctor appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 5 February 2021 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that Barbara Danish wrote The Dragon and the Doctor in 20 minutes?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2021/February. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/The Dragon and the Doctor.

Wikipedia

Children's literature Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Children's literature, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Children's literature on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Children's literatureWikipedia:WikiProject Children's literatureTemplate:WikiProject Children's literaturechildren and young adult literature articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Tasks you can do:

Here are some open tasks for WikiProject Children's literature, an attempt to create and standardize articles related to children's literature. Feel free to help with any of the following tasks.

Add {{Portal|Children's literature}} to the See also section of related articles.
Tag the talk pages of related articles with {{WikiProject Children's literature}}
Join WikiProject Children's literature and list yourself as a Participant in the project.
Cleanup: A cleanup listing for this project is available. See also the list by category, the tool's wiki page and the index of WikiProjects.
Deletion discussions: listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Literature
Notability: Articles with notability concerns, listed at WikiProject Notability
Rate the Unassessed articles in the Children's literature WikiProject.
References: Add references to Unreferenced BLPs.
Requested articles: Create a requested article on literature
Stubs: Improve a stub-class article

edit

Books

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Books. To participate in the project, please visit its page, where you can join the project and discuss matters related to book articles. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the relevant guideline for the type of work.BooksWikipedia:WikiProject BooksTemplate:WikiProject BooksBook articles

LGBTQ+ studies

This article is of interest to WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBTQ-related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.LGBTQ+ studiesWikipedia:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesTemplate:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesLGBTQ+ studies articles

Women writers Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women writers, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women writers on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women writersWikipedia:WikiProject Women writersTemplate:WikiProject Women writersWomen writers articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

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)[reply]

(

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).[reply]

Awaiting QPQ :) Kingoflettuce (talk) 14:18, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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