On 30 December 2024, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Belvidere Apollo Theatre collapse, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the only fatality of the Belvidere Apollo Theatre collapse was the only audience member to buy a band T-shirt at the event? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Belvidere Apollo Theatre collapse. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page ( here's how, Belvidere Apollo Theatre collapse), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Z1720 ( talk) 00:04, 30 December 2024 (UTC) reply

Hello @ Departure–, hopefully you have a nice day today. I would like to ask. During my check over the article Gibran Rakabuming Raka, I noticed that the account ownership controvery segment was explunged from the article. May I ask over to why this was the case? The controversy was fairly notable enough, with substantial evidence that this was the case. Even having its own article. The VP himself has denied ownership of said account and so would pass WP:OSPOL? or is there something else? Kaliper1 ( talk) 03:49, 10 January 2025 (UTC) reply

There was another oversight-y issue that obviously won't be revealed here, but the editor who brought that section to my attention was nearly blocked for it. If I recall correctly, the section you're talking about was entirely uncited, written in a negative tone, and the evidence (to me) didn't seem enough to keep in the article, so more of a BLP issue than an oversight one. I suppose it could be boldly re-added, but ideally with better sourcing than it had before. Departure– ( talk) 03:58, 10 January 2025 (UTC) reply

I see, that is... slightly concerning. WP:NPOV wise however, it should be manageable to rewrite. If it were to be added again, would you consider the given articles as reliable? ( [1], [2], [3], [4]). If it is just a BLP issue then it should be allowed. If not, it's better if I stop here. Kaliper1 ( talk) 04:51, 10 January 2025 (UTC) reply

Definitely more reliable than those that were there, in my opinion. With the BBC source stating that they had websites taken down that promoted the account, it could definitely be given its due weight in the article. Departure– ( talk) 13:39, 10 January 2025 (UTC) reply

On 13 January 2025, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Debris fallout, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that debris fallout from a violent 2011 tornado included a photograph found 353 km (219 mi) downstream from its origin? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Debris fallout. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page ( here's how, Debris fallout), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

♠ PMC♠ (talk) 00:03, 13 January 2025 (UTC) reply

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article National Weather Service Quad Cities, Iowa/Illinois you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of EF5 -- EF5 ( talk) 15:25, 14 January 2025 (UTC) reply