This page was originally written long before review, and the wording could have been taken to suggest it's okay to report things as fact that you're not certain of, that later turn out to be hoaxes. In the modern age, this should never happen; we should slather attribution on claims and never end up reporting something as fact that wasn't. Also, the examples themselves were from long before the age of review.
Besides updating the wording and mentioning WN:Attribution (which I'm reminded also needs improvement, as the discussion of attribution at WN:Neutrality is mostly better), I also looked for review-era examples. They're not all that easy to find. I think there have been cases where we correctly reported a claim with attribution and the claim later turned out to be false, but since I don't recall the specific subject matter it's a question what search strings one might use to locate them. --Pi zero (talk) 17:28, 17 September 2019 (UTC)