This article is written in Singaporean English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, realise, centre, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
A fact from 2020 dengue outbreak in Singapore appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 19 July 2022 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
This article was reviewed by member(s) of WikiProject Articles for creation. The project works to allow users to contribute quality articles and media files to the encyclopedia and track their progress as they are developed. To participate, please visit the project page for more information.Articles for creationWikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creationTemplate:WikiProject Articles for creationAfC articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Singapore, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Singapore 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.SingaporeWikipedia:WikiProject SingaporeTemplate:WikiProject SingaporeSingapore articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Viruses, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of viruses 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.VirusesWikipedia:WikiProject VirusesTemplate:WikiProject Virusesvirus articles
Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
A note for future readers and editors.
The 1 Oct 2020 commentary article in CNA[statsnote 1] states: "We found almost 50 per cent more infections during the circuit breaker period than there should have been based on our modelling." However, the actual research paper[statsnote 2] instead gives "around a 37.2% increase (95% CI, 19.9%–49.8%) from expected baseline levels attributable to [the circuit breaker]". The figure of "almost 50%" looks likely to have been derived from the "49.8%" in the confidence interval, which is not an appropriate interpretation. Considering Prof. Cook who wrote the commentary is also an author on the research paper, it is more probable that the mistake was introduced by editorial staff. Compare to Asian Scientist[statsnote 3] which correctly reports "a 37 percent increase".
Latest comment: 2 years ago7 comments3 people in discussion
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.
... 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]"
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)Reply
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)Reply
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)Reply
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)
BuySomeApples (talk) 20:40, 11 July 2022 (UTC)