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.

( ͡° ( ͡° ( ͡° ( ͡° ͜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. :) E_F⁵ 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. :) E_F⁵ 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)

• @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)