From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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 Theleekycauldron (talk) 11:41, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
2020 dengue outbreak in Singapore
- ... that a statistical analysis of Singapore's 2020 dengue outbreak found its COVID-19 lockdown restrictions responsible for a 37% increase in dengue fever infections?
Source: link "Increased Dengue Transmissions in Singapore Attributable to SARS-CoV-2 [lockdown] measures" / "difference-in-difference identification strategy was used" / "around a 37.2% increase (95% CI, 19.9%–49.8%) from expected baseline levels attributable to [the lockdown]"
Created by 2406:3003:2077:1E60:C998:20C6:8CCF:5730 (talk). Self-nominated at 22:37, 28 June 2022 (UTC).
| General: Article is new enough and long enough
|
|
|
| Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
|
|
|
| Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
|
|
|
Overall: 
The article looks great, well sourced and no POV issues that I can see. It was new enough at the time of nomination and definitely meets the length requirements. qpq is not needed since the IP editor hasn't had any other DYK credits yet. The hook is cited to a very reliable medical journal and is interesting. All 3 versions seem equally accurate and are within the character limit, so I'll leave the choice up to the promoter. I'd say this one's ready to go! BuySomeApples (talk) 22:37, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks @BuySomeApples for the review! Could you please explain the reasoning behind removing around half of the wikilinks from the hooks? Based on examples, I'd figured up to five was a pretty reasonable number of links to include. Was it objectionable to put difference in differences in a piped link behind "statistical analysis"? I'd wanted to include that because I felt the technique applied was itself interesting; enabling a sort of "opportunistic" experiment born out of circumstances (vs a deliberately conducted trial). Or, if that stats stuff is "too technical" for a general audience, then the hook can be streamlined significantly, e.g. below. Cheers, — 2406:3003:2077:1E60:C998:20C6:8CCF:5730 (talk) 06:22, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
- Hi! I mostly removed them to avoid overlinking, but after your explanation, I reinserted the piped link for statistical analysis. I'm just leaving out some of the wikilinks for things like Singapore, so that readers focus on the main bold link. I like the streamlined hook as well! Thank you for adding that. I think the promoters try to get a balance of long and short hooks on the front page, so I'll let them decide which one to use. BuySomeApples (talk) 12:24, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
- Sounds good! Thanks again, —2406:3003:2077:1E60:C998:20C6:8CCF:5730 (talk) 13:03, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
- No problem!
BuySomeApples (talk) 20:40, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
The article looks great, well sourced and no POV issues that I can see. It was new enough at the time of nomination and definitely meets the length requirements. qpq is not needed since the IP editor hasn't had any other DYK credits yet. The hook is cited to a very reliable medical journal and is interesting. All 3 versions seem equally accurate and are within the character limit, so I'll leave the choice up to the promoter. I'd say this one's ready to go! BuySomeApples (talk) 22:37, 10 July 2022 (UTC)