Template:Did you know nominations/podoconiosis

 The following is an archived discussion of podoconiosis's DYK nomination. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page; such as this archived nomination"s (talk) page, the nominated article's (talk) page, or the Did you know (talk) page. Unless there is consensus to re-open the archived discussion here. No further edits should be made to this page. See the talk page guidelines for (more) information.

The result was: promoted by Miyagawa (talk) 11:14, 19 February 2013 (UTC).

Podoconiosis

(

• Back to T:TDYK
• Article history

)

• ... that an estimated four million people worldwide suffer from podoconiosis (pictured)?

Created by Furorimpius (talk). Self nom at 03:44, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

• Date, length OK. But the hook (with an offline citation) does not say what the article says: the article says that the number affected is "estimated". Also the article requires rather more in the way of citations, especially in the Signs and symptoms, and in the Differential diagnosis sections - and elsewhere. These are only small flaws in what is otherwise a pretty good article. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 16:04, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

• It has been nearly three weeks since the above. The creator has only made one edit in the interim, to add an image to the article. I have just pinged Furorimpius's talk page; if there is no response in the next several days, it will probably be time to close this nomination. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:36, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks for the feedback, sorry for the late reply. Added an additional reference. There are only three review articles out there on podoconiosis, so there are really no other references to bring in (all three are already cited).Furorimpius (talk) 20:29, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

• The hook has now been amended to fit the article, and is AGF from an offline source, and is properly cited. The other citations could be better placed (I am going to contact the editor directly about this) but IMO they are currently good enough for DYK (and may be improved by the time it appears). --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 10:04, 18 February 2013 (UTC)