Talk:1957 Ruskin Heights tornado

Weather: Thunderstorms / Tornadoes Mid‑importance

	Weather portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Weather, which collaborates on weather and related subjects on Wikipedia. To participate, help improve this article or visit the project page for details. Articles Requested Project Resources Become a Member Project Talk Assessment A-Class Alerts WeatherWikipedia:WikiProject WeatherTemplate:WikiProject WeatherWeather
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Tornadoes portal This article is supported by WikiProject Severe weather (assessed as Mid-importance).

Kansas Low‑importance

	Kansas portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Kansas, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Kansas on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.KansasWikipedia:WikiProject KansasTemplate:WikiProject KansasKansas
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Missouri Low‑importance

	Missouri portal This article is part of WikiProject Missouri, a WikiProject related to the U.S. state of Missouri. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.MissouriWikipedia:WikiProject MissouriTemplate:WikiProject MissouriMissouri
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

United States Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Death Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Death, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Death on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DeathWikipedia:WikiProject DeathTemplate:WikiProject DeathDeath
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

A fact from 1957 Ruskin Heights tornado appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 8 January 2025 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that debris was carried aloft to an altitude of 30,000 feet (9,100 m) after the 1957 Ruskin Heights tornado?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2025/January. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/1957 Ruskin Heights tornado.

Wikipedia

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 AirshipJungleman29 talk 19:12, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(

Comment or view
Article history

)

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?

Source: https://fox4kc.com/news/survivor-describes-flying-into-water-tower-on-kcs-deadliest-tornado-anniversary/

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).[reply]

Personally, I like ALT1. Although I didn’t technically start the nom, I’ll still do a QPQ just to be fair. :) E_F⁵ 02:28, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@Departure–: My QPQ is done, since I'm technically a nominator. All issues have been addressed. :) E_F⁵ 16:44, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]
  - @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)[reply]
    - @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)[reply]
      - @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)[reply]