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 13:19, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

• ... that two simultaneous EF2 tornadoes tracked into downtown Tallahassee on the morning of May 10, 2024, merging over the city?

• Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Sanity Code
• Comment: The source isn't the same as I used in the article but I can't be bothered to correct it as the information to verify the hook is present in both (both being database entries with a combined "event summary" for both present on both pages). This is both an improbable occurrence and a bit of a tongue twister, not quite one to April 1 levels, however. I don't think I want to wait for May 10 as a special occasion.

Departure– (talk) 14:36, 27 February 2025 (UTC).

• I presume that the nominator intends us to treat this series of edits as expanding the article 5X? The thing is, I don't think it works out that way. The last version of the article before those edits had, according to the page size tool, these stats:

• HTML document size: 101 kB
• Prose size (including all HTML code): 9463 B
• References (including all HTML code): 14 kB
• Wiki text: 9651 B
• Prose size (text only): 5569 B (864 words) "readable prose size"
• References (text only): 1300 B

The current version instead has the following stats:

• HTML document size: 113 kB
• Prose size (including all HTML code): 13 kB
• References (including all HTML code): 23 kB
• Wiki text: 14 kB
• Prose size (text only): 8070 B (1257 words) "readable prose size"
• References (text only): 2204 B

I.e. this all looks more like an 1.5X expansion, not 5X. I am giving the nominator the chance to respond, but it seems like it would have to be rejected on those grounds alone. InformationToKnowledge (talk) 15:35, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

• @InformationToKnowledge: I suppose I didn't specify in the template, but moved to mainspace on 26 February 2025. I'm not nominating this on expansion. Departure– (talk) 15:37, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

• Just chiming here to note that this nom passes the newness and length criteria. Viriditas (talk) 23:44, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

• New enough and long enough. I checked earwig, which showed some close paraphrasing which you might want to fix. Other than that, I don't see any copyvio concerns. The article's "presentable"; the hook, cited. I worry about the "May 10, 2024" link, though, because I expect that to go to May 10, 2024 or something of the like. Is there a way to make that less WP:ASTONISHing? We may need to explicitly name the tornado outbreak ("as part of a...") Besides that, I don't have any concerns with the hook. There's no image, so no concerns there obviously; QPQ is done; and I don't see anything else wrong with the article once the tweaks mentioned above are made. Cheers, Cremastra (talk) 15:40, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

• @Cremastra: The Earwig paraphrasing doesn't seem to me to be an issue - the NCDC source is in the public domain as a US government agency, and it's really just location names that can hardly be considered an issue for copyright even then, and most of the article isn't taken from there either. As for the hook, what do you think about...

  . . . that two EF2 tornadoes in 2024 merged over downtown Tallahassee?

  The date and outbreak aren't really necessary in the hook. Departure– (talk) 15:50, 8 March 2025 (UTC)
  • Yes, this hook looks good. My concerns about the paraphrasing (which is slightly more than place names) were wrong given the copyright status. Cremastra (talk) 21:43, 10 March 2025 (UTC)