Talk:Tropical Storm Kika/GA1

GA Review[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Hi! I'll be reviewing this article for GA status, and should have the full review up soon. Dana boomer (talk) 13:31, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for criteria)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS):
In the first paragraph of the Meteorological history section you say "by easterly trade winds south large subtropical high pressure area located". Is it just me or is there something missing from this sentence?

It's fairly obvious that since it was a weak storm, the name won't be retired, so could you add something about when the name will next be used?
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars etc.:
It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

Just a couple of comments/questions, so I'm putting the article on hold. Drop me a note if you have any questions. Dana boomer (talk) 14:05, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Quick note about the next use of the name. There is no specific year that the name will be used, because the CPAC list is use sequentially and carries over to the next year. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 14:38, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've fixed the other sentence. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 15:16, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note on the naming, and everything else looks good, so I'm passing this article to GA status. Nice work. Dana boomer (talk) 15:43, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

:D thanks! Cyclonebiskit (talk) 15:45, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Check the article against the TCR[edit]

It appears that the TCR is not used for any of the sources of this article, and that the article passed GA well before the TCR was issued. If there are conflicts between the TCR and this article, it could lead to GAR. Regardless, the TCR is a more primary reference and should be used within this article. Thegreatdr (talk) 21:40, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Um it is used - its the only source weve got to say that KIKA was a basin crosser and reintensifed into a TD Jason Rees (talk) 21:20, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how I missed seeing it. It is reference 23. Thegreatdr (talk) 21:24, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]