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 BlueMoonset (talk) 04:38, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Biotin

  • ... that biotin has been proven to benefit hoof health in cattle and horses, but evidence for human nail health is very weak? Source: (ref 53 cattle, 55 horses, 3, 50 and 51 humans)

Improved to Good Article status by David notMD (talk). Self-nominated at 21:32, 18 February 2021 (UTC).

  • @David notMD: New enough GA. QPQ present. Reference numbers have been shuffled around but the references do check out to support the claims in the hook which are also present in the articles, and it's an interesting hook. There are two paragraphs that do not end with inline citations: one basically does but has a link sentence to RDI (which seems OK to me as an exception since it's a "see also" type of sentence), but the intro paragraph of "Physiology" needs one, and then I will approve. Sammi Brie (she/her • tc) 01:37, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Yes, ref numbers increased because of ref added after DYK nom, but Cattle remains Langova, Horses remains Kentucky, and the human refs remain Cashman and Patel. Intro paragraph for Physiology has ref provided (same as used in the subsections under Physiology). P.S. I would have preferred an on-line ref rather than depend so much on the book Present Knowledge In Nutrition (2020), but it is a very good resource (and it cost me $150). David notMD (talk) 14:41, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Sorry about not seeing this until today, I wasn't pinged! The missing inline citation has been added and this is now good to go. Sammi Brie (she/her • tc) 17:16, 25 February 2021 (UTC)