Talk:Long COVID

Did you know nomination

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)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that virus can remain in the body after a COVID infection, which is hypothesised to contribute to long COVID? Source: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41590-023-01601-2
  • ALT1: ... that 6% of the US population has symptoms of long COVID lasting three months or more? Source: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10415000/
  • ALT2: ... that long COVID for people who meet the criteria for ME/CFS may be lifelong? Source: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9839201/
  • Reviewed:
  • Comment: I think this is my 4th DYK, so no review is necessary yet.

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
New enough: Long enough:

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

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Cited: Interesting:

QPQ: Done.

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:

• ALT1b: ... that 6% of the US population had symptoms of long COVID lasting three months or longer in June 2023? Source: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10415000/
• ALT1c: ... that 6% of the US population had symptoms of long COVID lasting three months or longer in the first half of 2023? Source: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10415000/. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 14:00, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

• @Onceinawhile: Have the above comments been addressed? Z1720 (talk) 18:54, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

ALT1c is good to go! Onceinawhile (talk) 22:13, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Article by researcher

https://theconversation.com/long-covid-puzzle-pieces-are-falling-into-place-the-picture-is-unsettling-233759 this looks interesting as a reference for symptoms continuing to appear/develop up to 3 years after the initial infection EdwardLane 2A02:C7E:311A:FF00:9992:E0AF:B195:9399 (talk) 07:08, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Possible source

For @Femke, @The Quirky Kitty, and anyone else who is interested in this article: This review from the Health Information and Quality Authority of Ireland might be worth looking at.

https://www.hiqa.ie/reports-and-publications/health-technology-assessment/interventions-improve-long-covid-symptoms

WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:39, 23 October 2024 (UTC)