Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Tropical Storm Kiko (2007)/archive3

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 23:11, 22 November 2008 [1].

Tropical Storm Kiko (2007)

[edit]
Nominator(s): Cyclonebiskit (talk)

I am re-nominating this article, Tropical Storm Kiko (2007), as a Featured Article Candidate. Since the first FAC, the issues addressed by the reviewers have been fixed. All comments are welcome :) Cyclonebiskit (talk) 23:27, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It varies, and generally articles are left up for a number of days before being promoted, usually longer than two. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:01, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I thought that, as a project, we agreed tiny articles would go no further that A-class. This was in response to the flood of short Tropical Cyclone articles at FAC at the expense of the most important storms. Plasticup T/C 02:38, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
AFAIK, that was more of a brief IRC "agreement". There may have been some discussion at WT:WPTC, but now that it's here, I see no reason not to let it run its course. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 02:45, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a bit about the previous uses of the name. I think that's the last thing needed for this article to pass. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 21:10, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image review - Just some small issues with regards to the images:

  • Image:Kiko 20 oct 2007 1800Z.jpg - Is there any way to link directly to the source image here? I wasn't totally sure how to find the image when I got to the source.
  • Image:Kiko 2007 track.png - Can we link directly to the data for this storm at the NHC or not? Also, we need to list all of the authors on the image description page.
  • Image:Kiko 2007 track map.gif - I didn't see this image at the source link. Is it in the graphics archive? If so, we should link to that more specifically.

These should be easy to fix. Awadewit (talk) 18:54, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think the first and third ones have been fixed, but I can't do anything with the second one because the image has been locked. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 19:10, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Could an administrator edit it? Why has it been locked? Awadewit (talk) 15:06, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Unless I'm missing something, it doesn't appear to be locked. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 16:32, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
When I tried to edit it on Commons, I received a little message saying I could only view the source code, not change it. Awadewit (talk) 16:37, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's weird; it seems normal to me on Commons, even while logged out. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 16:40, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, I still can't edit Image:Kiko 2007 track.png. Anyone else? Awadewit (talk) 17:06, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know why, but I was getting the same problem when logged out. Maybe it was semi-ed, and the log doesn't show it? In any case, I added Ajm81's name to the template there, which should solve the problem. The link would be [2], but that one is accessible from the clearinghouse page that the template already links to. The clearinghouse link seems to be hard-coded inside the template... Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 19:20, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh wow, didn't know it was that complicated. Thanks for fixing it :) Cyclonebiskit (talk) 20:16, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, seems the template could be improved! Awadewit (talk) 15:34, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've put a small explanation of the name with a reference in that article, I'll ad the meaning of the name to the storm article now. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 14:53, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Added it. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 15:02, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per 1c. The article claims that the name Kiko is of Japanese origin, but there is no source that supports this (other than to a baby name website). The name can also be of Filipino origin, so the sentence appears to be speculation. --RelHistBuff (talk) 12:26, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Is there another source that states it as such? Cyclonebiskit (talk) 12:29, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
More sources that support the Japanese origin. [3] [4]. I think this is the Japanese kanji for Kiko also: キコ Not sure If that should be included since I don't have a source for it. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 13:07, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The script is katakana, not kanji. You also touched on another problem. Unless one reads the original kanji (and I doubt the WMO uses kanji), there is no way to determine the Japanese meaning or intent. And quite often the same name can be either male or female depending on the kanji used. It is pure speculation on what the WMO intended in choosing the name (unless you can find a WMO source that specifically says the name is of Japanese female origin). Just drop the speculation. --RelHistBuff (talk) 13:24, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, ok. BTW, I didn't speculate the usage of the name, I just put what was in the source. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 14:07, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
IMO, giving information about the origin of the name is a bit excessive in the first place. The article is about the tropical cyclone of 2007, not the name "Kiko". –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 14:36, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So it should be removed? Cyclonebiskit (talk) 15:05, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Probably. Kiko is actually a name in several languages and isn't necessarily female. Kaldari (talk) 20:55, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I'll remove it. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 21:46, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - it doesn't seem the article was looked closely enough, so I have a few nit-picks.
    • Quick question. What does the Port of Captaincy redlink mean?
      • It's a port, I really don't get what's been so confusing about this. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 15:13, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • The confusing part is that Google only has 2 hits for the term, each to this article. Surely there would be more than that if it were an actual port. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:38, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Oh...no wonder...It was a mistranslation. It really should say "captain of the port" I'll fix it soon, class time Cyclonebiskit (talk) 18:57, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • Yea, I realized that when I first checked the source. That is my primary concern for the article, that not enough time and care has been put into it. It doesn't seem like an outstanding amount of work was put into the article. Don't get me wrong, it is a good article, but I don't support it becoming a featured article with all of these problems this late in the game. For an article to be featured, I like to think of it as being good enough for people to get their proverbial money's worth if they look at it. IMO, that is the crucial difference between GA and FA. Is this the best the article can be? I doubt it. As Juliancolton suggested above and as I still believe, I think there is more information out there. Surely some other resource available mentions some more of the effects on land. Mexico is very mountainous, and in most storms I've researched, heavy rainfall in Mexico usually leads to mudslides, damaged houses, flooding, or some other form of impact, yet the article doesn't mention any of the sort. Then there are the fishing deaths, which is conspicuously missing any more information... anywhere. I find it odd the NHC didn't mention it in the TCR, and apparently there are no other sources mentioning up to 24 people dying in a single capsized ship. In 2000, when Hurricane Carlotta caused 18 deaths from a capsized ship, it was well-publicized. I dunno. SandyGeorgia, if you consider this inactionable, I respect your decision, but as it stands I can't support this becoming a featured article. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 05:02, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • In the first paragraph, you say the "wave quickly developed, spawning Tropical Storm Melissa", but then the next sentence says part of the wave continued westward away from the developing depression. I see two things wrong with that. First, you say TS Melissa, and then you say the developing depression. Second, you say the wave quickly developed. Personally, I hate that wording. Tropical waves are troughs of low pressure - they don't develop into tropical cyclones, instead they spawn tropical cyclones. Some people might not know the difference, and it doesn't help that tropical wave wasn't explained. Likewise, you don't explain or even link "strong upper-level winds", which I presume means wind shear. An FA should not have any guesswork.
    • Is there any information in the tropical weather outlooks about the precursor history to the storm? I see no links, and usually the TWO's provide some good info. It doesn't help that most of the first paragraph was a re-written version of the tropical cyclone report.
    • You link Acapulco, Mexico, but that is a redirect. You should check whether it is proper to do Acapulco, Mexico, or Acapulco, Guerrero, or even just Acapulco. You might want to ask around, but is the link even needed?
    • You say where/when the precursor low became better organized, but you don't do the same for when it actually became a tropical cyclone. Why is that?
    • In the first sentence of the second paragraph, there is no context for "for the next 30 hours". Try re-writing, so that if someone (like me) started from the second paragraph, there'd be no confusion.
    • For locations, you should use "about" or "around" XX miles, since the current wording would imply it was exactly 275 miles on the dot.
    • What exactly caused Kiko to take its unusual east-southeast track?
    • Try not to use the word "Kiko" so much, or at least realize how often you use it. It got annoying to read it once per sentence in the third paragraph
    • It seems rather sudden the storm going from peak intensity to TD status. Was it really that sudden, or did the convection gradually diminish?
    • The last four sentences of the met. history seem to drag on a bit. Is there any way you can make it more concise?
    • Link TS warning. BTW, was a TS watch issued prior to the TS warning? If so, that needs to be mentioned.
    • Starting a paragraph with "however" isn't a great idea. Try again in the second paragraph of impact.
    • Any rainfall totals? You just say heavy rainfall affected Mexico for two days. You don't even use the official post-season report by the Mexican equivalence of the NWS [5] - was there not anything useful there?
    • With 15 people killed and possibly 9 more, surely there would be more information on the boat capsizing, especially beyond two news links while the storm was active.
    • Sorry to bring back the naming stuff, but I don't get what this means - "The name Kiko was submitted by the World Meteorological Organization in 1979 after the list of names was changed to include male names, despite this name being female." Source for Kiko being female?
    • Any shelters opened in Mexico?
  • For an article about to be labeled as our best work, I feel a lot has to be done. There are too many writing/comprehensiveness concerns. Sorry. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 05:00, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Tropical_Storm_Kiko_(2007)/archive3&oldid=1146463113"