Talk:Tropical Storm Kiko (2007)

Fatalities

I'm unsure of the fatalities since they're not included in the NHC's TCR but I'm not sure since I've found an article stating that officials recovered 15 bodies from a ship that sank during the storm. Please discuss it here before changing it on the main article Cyclonebiskit (talk) 05:08, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Tropical Storm Kiko (2007)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

---

This article is in decent shape, but it needs more work before it becomes a Good Article.

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   In the Storm history section, this sentence ---> "Late on October 16" doesn't read right, it would be best if it were re-written.

   Check. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 19:11, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

   In the Storm history section, un-link all the dates, per the new MoS of Dates. Same section, it would be best to link "Manzanillo, Mexico" once, per here.

   Half-check. "Manzanillo, Mexico" is still linked twice. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 19:11, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

   Check. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 20:25, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

2. Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose):

   C. It contains no original research:

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   If the following statements can be answered, I will pass the article. Good luck with improving this article!

--  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 21:22, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Just of note, I removed autoformatted dates with a script, thus that issue is resolved. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 21:26, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I've rewrote the sentence. Also, thanks Julian for helping out with the dates. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 18:43, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Haha, I had it linked in Four paragraphs. I removed three, the linked one is in the first paragraph of the storm history.

It was alright to have it linked in the Preparations and Impact section. ;) The only reason I called it out was because it was linked three times in the Storm section. Either way, congratulations Cyclonebiskit you now have a GA in your midst. ;) --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 20:25, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Copyeditor's thoughts

I see four things that I can't fix that need attention.

• I'm a bit confused about the time of the ferry accident relative to the time of the storm's peak intensity. The lead implies that the ferry was sailing after a hurricane warning had been issued and after the storm had been forecast to come ashore. However, if I understand the main text correctly, this might not be true. Including the date of the accident in the main text and re-writing the lead to clarify this point would be good. Was the forecast changed to "not coming ashore" before the capsizing? Was the storm upgraded to hurricane status before or after the capsizing?
• After clarifying the timeline, you might consider breaking the lead into two or three paragraphs at reasonable break points. They might be a bit too short that way, but it would be worth considering. The existing paragraph is a bit long and shifts abruptly from the capsizing to the storm's development.
• The other hurricane articles I've worked on expressed distances in miles and kilometers. This one uses nautical miles and kilometers. Since most readers are more familiar with miles than nautical miles, I'd suggest using miles. If you want to include nautical miles as well, you could do that, perhaps in a note or perhaps in the main text.
• What does "port of captaincy" mean? Maybe "port" would be better or, if not, the term needs to be explained. What, exactly, did it mean to close the port of captaincy? What ports or cities or regions did this apply to? Did this action have any bearing on the capsizing? Was the ferry operating despite the closing? Finetooth (talk) 18:48, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Just as a note, the capsizing ferry was carrying illegal immigrants, they had no clue what was coming from what I've read. Thanks for the input and the copyedit :D I'll see what I can do to fix those four things. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 19:15, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Sources

Some useful bits of info in these:

• [1]
• [2]

–Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:22, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Tropical Storm Kiko (2007). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110721223616/http://www.correo-gto.com.mx/notas.asp?id=44864 to http://www.correo-gto.com.mx/notas.asp?id=44864

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:25, 24 January 2016 (UTC)