Template:Did you know nominations/Wikipedia coverage of the COVID-19 pandemic

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 Lightburst (talk) 18:06, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia coverage of the COVID-19 pandemic

  • ... that we try? Source: Benjakob, Omer (8 April 2020). "Why Wikipedia Is Immune to Coronavirus". Haaretz. https://www.haaretz.com/us-news/.premium.MAGAZINE-why-wikipedia-is-immune-to-coronavirus-1.8751147
    • ALT1: ... that we're better than the CDC? Source: DiResta, Renée (21 July 2021). "Institutional Authority Has Vanished. Wikipedia Points to the Answer". The Atlantic. ISSN 2151-9463. https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2021/07/cdc-should-be-more-like-wikipedia/619469/ "Fortunately, the internet has produced a model for this approach: Wikipedia. The crowdsourced reference site is the simplest, most succinct summary of the current state of knowledge on almost any subject you can imagine. If an agency such as the CDC launched a health-information site, and gave a community of hundreds or thousands of knowledgeable people the ability to edit it, the outcome would be far more complete and up-to-date than individual press releases. The same model—tapping distributed expertise rather than relying on institutional authority—could be useful for other government agencies that find themselves confronting rumors."
    • Reviewed:

Template:Did you know nominations/Royal Palm State Park

    • Comment: For April Fools' Day

Improved to Good Article status by MyCatIsAChonk (talk). Self-nominated at 14:27, 19 February 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Wikipedia coverage of the COVID-19 pandemic; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.

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
QPQ: Done.

Overall: @MyCatIsAChonk: Funny hooks. You can definitely make another hook called "... that we're immune to Coronavirus?" but your two hooks are great too so i'll approve. Onegreatjoke (talk) 19:38, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

  • That's a really good one, thanks for your suggestion; whoever looks this over can definitely consider that one too. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) 19:40, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

It was about to go to the Main Page when the consensus at Errors was that it needs to be pulled as per this diff. Schwede66 06:37, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

ALT proposals for the next reviewer:
ALT2: ... that Wikipedia's coverage of the COVID-19 pandemic was described as better than the CDC's?
Source: DiResta, Renée (21 July 2021). "Institutional Authority Has Vanished. Wikipedia Points to the Answer". The Atlantic. ISSN 2151-9463. https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2021/07/cdc-should-be-more-like-wikipedia/619469/ "Fortunately, the internet has produced a model for this approach: Wikipedia. The crowdsourced reference site is the simplest, most succinct summary of the current state of knowledge on almost any subject you can imagine. If an agency such as the CDC launched a health-information site, and gave a community of hundreds or thousands of knowledgeable people the ability to edit it, the outcome would be far more complete and up-to-date than individual press releases. The same model—tapping distributed expertise rather than relying on institutional authority—could be useful for other government agencies that find themselves confronting rumors."
ALT3: ... that during the COVID-19 pandemic, readers of the Italian Wikipedia had increased readership on articles about dieting?
Source: Nucci, Daniele; Santangelo, Omar Enzo; Nardi, Mariateresa; Provenzano, Sandro; Gianfredi, Vincenza (November 2021). "Wikipedia, Google Trends and Diet: Assessment of Temporal Trends in the Internet Users' Searches in Italy before and during COVID-19 Pandemic". Nutrients. 13 (11): 3683. doi:10.3390/nu13113683. PMC 8620684. PMID 34835939
ALT4: ... that in 2020, COVID-19 related articles across all Wikipedias received over 579 million pageviews?
"Wikipedia and COVID-19 - Explore the data". Wikimedia Foundation. 13 April 2020. Retrieved 4 February 2023.
MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 14:01, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
  • Approving ALT4. @MyCatIsAChonk: Thanks for proposing more ALT hooks! ALT4 is good to go and is rather nice in highlighting "all Wikipedias". Striking ALT3 because there's literally no additional information contained within the article beyond what is in the hook (plus it seems rather tangential and undersells the article). Also striking ALT2, because the article currently doesn't even mention the CDC...and also, the hook itself feels a bit misleading – i.e., it would be more accurate to have a hook that says something like, "... The Atlantic suggested that the Centers for Disease Control should emulate Wikipedia?" Cielquiparle (talk) 12:18, 20 April 2023 (UTC)