Template:Did you know nominations/1957 Ruskin Heights tornado
- 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 AirshipJungleman29 talk 19:12, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
1957 Ruskin Heights tornado
An aerial view of the damage caused by the Ruskin Heights tornado.
- ... that the 1957 Ruskin Heights tornado threw an occupied car into a water tower, and the inhabitants survived?
- ALT1:
... that a check lifted by the 1957 Ruskin Heights tornado was found 165 miles away?Source: https://www.tornadotalk.com/ruskin-heights-f5-tornado-may-20-1957/ - ALT2: ... that the 1957 Ruskin Heights tornado has been described as having the appearance of several tentacles? Source: https://www.weather.gov/eax/RuskinHeights
- ALT3: ... that a memorial erected to honor the victims of the 1957 Ruskin Heights tornado was later damaged in a car crash? Source: https://fox4kc.com/news/push-to-rebuild-after-ruskin-heights-tornado-memorial-damaged/
- ALT4: ... that pilots reported flying debris at 30,000 feet altitude after the 1957 Ruskin Heights tornado? Source: https://www.tornadotalk.com/ruskin-heights-f5-tornado-may-20-1957/
- Reviewed:
- Comment: EF5 helped with the article a lot but did not write these hooks.
Created by Wildfireupdateman (talk) and EF5 (talk).
Number of QPQs required: 0. Nominator has fewer than 5 past nominations.
( ͡° ( ͡° ( ͡° ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°) ͡°) ͡°) ͡°) 02:10, 3 December 2024 (UTC).
- Personally, I like ALT1. Although I didn’t technically start the nom, I’ll still do a QPQ just to be fair. :) EF5 02:28, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
- Although technically the nom doesn't require a QPQ since you aren't the nominator, if you're going to do QPQs, just note that DYK is currently in backlog mode, meaning people with over 20 nominations will need to do two reviews instead of one. I think you still have less than 20 nominations so this doesn't apply to you so for now you only need to do just one review and not two, it's just something to keep in mind in case you get affected in the future. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 06:14, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
On first inspection, the article looks good. The only issue I have is that there's a few uncited sentences near the end of the first paragraph of the summary section; I've left a CN tag there. I'm definitely thinking the originally proposed blurb about the water tower is the best one; claim is verified in the article from this non-political Fox News source, the hook is short and interesting, no QPQ needed, Earwig shows no copyvio concern. My other minor issue is the status of the main image in the infobox - it's up for deletion on Commons, but this can feasibly be re-added as NFC later on if it's removed. I'd advise against using the image provided as it doesn't really illustrate the water tower or any of the other hooks, though. 
Almost there. Departure– (talk) 16:36, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
- @Departure–: My QPQ is done, since I'm technically a nominator. All issues have been addressed. :) EF5 16:44, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
- That was my only main issue. As it stands, the article's a little short but seems good enough for DYK as it stands.
Good to go. Departure– (talk) 16:46, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
- That was my only main issue. As it stands, the article's a little short but seems good enough for DYK as it stands.
- @Departure–:Note that I will be under a self-requested block until December 20th. For DYK matters, please contact @EF5:. Wildfireupdateman (talk)
- I am back. Wildfireupdateman (talk)
- Struck ALT0, which wasn't independently verified by the source (just a story from the locals), and ALT1, which says it was already a cancelled check (and the article doesn't mention that it was a check at all). theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 18:47, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
- @Theleekycauldron: I re-added the blurb and claim in the article because it's a claim that is not challenged by a reliable source nor otherwise implausible. FOX is typically considered generally reliable for non-political stories. If this event happened in the 1910s maybe I could doubt it but as it stands ALT0 is cited well enough and the most interesting. However, the actual story states that while Davis and her mother were found alive in the car, her sister did not, so the blurb should be changed to mention that only "some" occupants survived. Departure– (talk) 17:23, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Departure–: An important distinction to know about RSes is that usually, they will say things in their own voice, which is when our general classifications of RSes apply, but there are times where they will just take random people's stories and not do any kind of independent verification. In those cases, it's not so much the reliability of the publication as much as it is the person. The real 'source' for this claim isn't fox, which is just republishing something without doing any fact-checking on the contents, it's the people who told the story, and they're not going to be considered a reliable source for a claim like this. That's why I removed the claim from the article, and why I definitely don't think it should run as a hook. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 17:27, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Theleekycauldron: I don't think the claim is coming from the people re-telling the story. I believe FOX states that as a fact that was verified by local authorities (i.e. the Ruskin Heights Fire Department) when they assertively say "was found inside" rather than just "was inside". It's hardly fantastical and there's almost certainly another reliable party re-telling the story to FOX that isn't the people in the car. The interview states "But Bobby Davis has been told she was the one found..." and earlier in the story also states she has a poor memory of that day. Departure– (talk) 17:34, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Departure–: An important distinction to know about RSes is that usually, they will say things in their own voice, which is when our general classifications of RSes apply, but there are times where they will just take random people's stories and not do any kind of independent verification. In those cases, it's not so much the reliability of the publication as much as it is the person. The real 'source' for this claim isn't fox, which is just republishing something without doing any fact-checking on the contents, it's the people who told the story, and they're not going to be considered a reliable source for a claim like this. That's why I removed the claim from the article, and why I definitely don't think it should run as a hook. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 17:27, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Theleekycauldron: I re-added the blurb and claim in the article because it's a claim that is not challenged by a reliable source nor otherwise implausible. FOX is typically considered generally reliable for non-political stories. If this event happened in the 1910s maybe I could doubt it but as it stands ALT0 is cited well enough and the most interesting. However, the actual story states that while Davis and her mother were found alive in the car, her sister did not, so the blurb should be changed to mention that only "some" occupants survived. Departure– (talk) 17:23, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
- Struck ALT0, which wasn't independently verified by the source (just a story from the locals), and ALT1, which says it was already a cancelled check (and the article doesn't mention that it was a check at all). theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 18:47, 31 December 2024 (UTC)