Template:Did you know nominations/Epidemic curve

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: rejected by BlueMoonset (talk) 00:51, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
Article has never been long enough to meet the minimum requirement for DYK. Closing as unsuccessful.

Epidemic curve

(

)

... that the first epidemic curves of the COVID-19 outbreak supported the working theory of a continuous source of the virus (Huanan Seafood Market) in December 2019, before it mutated to be transmitted person to person? https://github.com/cmrivers/ncov/blob/master/COVID-19.pdf

ALT-1... that the first epidemic curves of the coronavirus outbreak suggested the original source of the virus was probably the market in December 2019, before it was transmitted person to person? https://github.com/cmrivers/ncov/blob/master/COVID-19.pdf

Created by Almaty (talk). Self-nominated at 07:57, 20 February 2020 (UTC).

General eligibility:

New enough:
Long enough: - Only ~1100 characters

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Adequate sourcing: Neutral: Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook eligibility:

Cited:
Interesting:
Other problems: - 216 characters

QPQ: None required.

Overall: The article was new enough when nominated, but it is unambiguously a stub and is not long enough (only 1095 chars of readable prose after my copyedits, versus 1500 required minimum for DYK). Claims in the article are supported by suitable citations, and the material is treated in an appropriately neutral fashion. I don't see any signs of plagiarism from Wikipedia or online sources. The proposed hook is interesting and supported by an inline citation, but its text is too long (216 characters); I'd replace "supported the working theory" with just "suggested" or something simpler. No QPQ review required, as the nominator has only two DYK credits. Since the article is about a type of data graph, it would really be nice to have an image for this nomination (and an image of the CoViD-19 epi curve in the article!). There's a valid cleanup template in the lead section. I think this probably can't pass now, since it was not close to being long enough well past the seven-day nomination window, but I'm willing to give another review if the article is expanded and cleaned up (if the admins are willing to accept it). Bryan Rutherford (talk) 16:22, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

comment at the time of nom, it met the criteria. I have reinserted some of the explanation which was copyedited and removed. I think its quite a good one to put on the front page! --Almaty (talk) 05:40, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Hmm... I'm not sure what you mean. As of your final edit prior to nomination, the readable prose text was 1086 characters in length, and none of the edits made by other editors has shortened the article. After your edit yesterday, the readable prose is still only 1370 characters, and the DYK standard is a minimum of 1500. It's a very interesting and important topic, I agree! -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 14:37, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

It occurs to me that maybe this should be clarified: the DYK length standard refers to the readable prose text of the article that a reader sees on the screen, not to the length of the raw article code. The raw text includes things like templates, references, infoboxes, categories, and so on that make the file longer but don't contribute to the text of the article. At present the raw article file is 3458 characters long, but the readable text is only 1370 characters, and that's what the DYK criterion cares about. Incidentally, this is also how the criterion for the length of the hook works. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 15:31, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

maybe an ALT-2 is needed--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 17:59, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

No. An article expansion is needed. Without an expansion, there is no need for any hooks as the article currently does not qualify for DYK. Schwede 66 00:19, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

I have just struck the original hook, which at 217 prose characters exceeds the absolutely maximum of 200. (It also violates the rule against not using parenthetical comments, see WP:DYKSG#C9.) Almaty, as noted above, the nomination is currently failing because the article remains below 1500 prose characters, the minimum requirement for DYK eligibility. I hope the article can be suitably expanded, and also that the "clarification needed" template is addressed. Best of luck going forward. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:33, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

No worries. I think personally that the outbreak is getting enough attention and at a later date I may 5x expand epidemic curves, with a different hook. --Almaty (talk) 05:01, 8 March 2020 (UTC)