- 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 Fritzmann2002 talk 12:52, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
Long COVID
Improved to Good Article status by Femke (talk). Self-nominated at 08:20, 23 September 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Long COVID; 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
|
|
|
Overall: 
Good article, well sourced and reads well. Only 4 prior DYKs, so no QPQ needed. Passed earwig test. ALT1 is the most interesting, but I think it should give a time period for the 6% - my read of the source is that it is referring to June 2023? Onceinawhile (talk) 12:13, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
- The number has stayed constant between January and June this year, so I think a present tense is justifiable for catchiness. No objection against the following however:
-
ALT1c is good to go! Onceinawhile (talk) 22:13, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
Good article, well sourced and reads well. Only 4 prior DYKs, so no QPQ needed. Passed earwig test. ALT1 is the most interesting, but I think it should give a time period for the 6% - my read of the source is that it is referring to June 2023? Onceinawhile (talk) 12:13, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
