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


 * 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 promoted by Raul654 19:14, 10 February 2009.

Tropical Storm Kiko (2007)

 * Nominator(s): Cyclonebiskit

Fourth attempt at FA for this article. I've corrected most (if not all) of the comments from the previous FAC's and have found no further information on impact in Mexico and on the status of the missing passengers from the ship. All thoughts and comments are welcome. Cyclonebiskit 18:40, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Image review - All images have verifiable licenses and adequate descriptions. Awadewit (talk) 21:33, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks :) Cyclonebiskit 21:42, 24 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Content support - The article is fine, but I am going to be a bit nitpicky here.
 * 1) Delink the tons of NHC links in the references except for its first use.
 * 2) Split the last paragraph in Meteorological History to two paragraphs.
 * 3) Is there any info or interesting details about the remnant low? (Optional)

Its a fine article, think you'd give up after 3 attempts :P - Mitch 32 ( Go Syracuse ) 00:15, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Done. There was nothing special that happened while it was a remnant low. Cyclonebiskit 00:25, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 02:06, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks :) Cyclonebiskit 02:07, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Support Comments  from Looks pretty good, although I can't evaluate the content.
 * "was a strong tropical storm that killed at least 15 people off the coast of Mexico when a ferry, caught in the storm's rough surf, capsized." Isn't that a bit too much detail for the first sentence?
 * "By October 18 Kiko" Comma after "18".
 * "developed along the wave around 275 mi (440 km)" Spell out units on their first appearance, and consider unlinking them, as I am pretty sure most people know what miles and kilometers are.
 * "Rainfall totals of 4 in (100 mm) " Same comment here.
 * "Only two people survived; 15 bodies were recovered, and nine passengers were never found" Comparable quantities should be written out the same; either all words or all figures. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:50, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I've addressed the last four comments but I'm not sure what's wrong with the first sentence, it seems fine to me. Cyclonebiskit 17:38, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The first sentence is meant to establish context and notabilty. "killed at least 15 people off the coast of Mexico when a ferry, caught in the storm's rough surf, capsized", IMO is too much information. Perhaps just mention that it struck the coast of Mexico and nothing more. Dabomb87 (talk) 17:58, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I would have to include the fatalities somewhere in the lead as that is the most notable event due to the storm. If I take the loss of life out of the lead, then it loses some of it's importance to readers who just check the lead before reading the whole article. Cyclonebiskit 18:01, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, not a big deal. Dabomb87 (talk) 18:05, 25 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Oppose
 * Tropical Storm Kiko was a strong tropical storm that killed at least 15 people off the coast of Mexico when a ferry, caught in the storm's rough surf, capsized. - This is rather clunky. I would suggest changing it to, "Tropical Storm Kiko was a strong tropical storm that capsized a boat, killing at least 15 people".
 * done Cyclonebiskit 16:32, 29 January 2009 (UTC)


 * The 15th and final tropical cyclone and the 11th named storm of the 2007 Pacific hurricane season, Kiko developed out of a tropical wave that formed off the coast of Africa on September 26 and traversed the Atlantic. - Too many "and"s here.
 * done Cyclonebiskit 16:32, 29 January 2009 (UTC)


 * A tropical wave exited the western coast of Africa on September 26. A second area of low pressure developed along the southern portion of the wave as it traveled west. - You never mentioned the first low pressure area.
 * done Cyclonebiskit 16:32, 29 January 2009 (UTC)


 * The northern low quickly developed, spawning Tropical Depression Fourteen on September 28. - Why "Fourteen" here, but "15" later?
 * done Cyclonebiskit 16:32, 29 January 2009 (UTC)


 * It continued through the Atlantic, entering the Pacific Ocean on October 8. - Should specify that it crossed land to get there.
 * done Cyclonebiskit 16:32, 29 January 2009 (UTC)


 * On October 13, those winds weakened slightly, allowing the low to become better organized.. - Weird punctuation.
 * done Cyclonebiskit 16:32, 29 January 2009 (UTC)


 * On October 16, strong easterly wind shear exposed the center of the depression. - Exposed from what?
 * done Cyclonebiskit 16:32, 29 January 2009 (UTC)


 * However, a curving convective band developed around the system, and satellites detected winds of 40 mph (65 km/h). - "Curving convective band" needs a link.
 * done Cyclonebiskit 16:32, 29 January 2009 (UTC)


 * The storm was forecast to re-intensify slightly over the next five days while drifting to the east-northeast. - Unnecessary and trivial bit of info.
 * done Cyclonebiskit 16:32, 29 January 2009 (UTC)


 * The center remained poorly defined, and winds of tropical-storm force blew only in Kiko's southwest quadrant. - "Tropical-storm force" &rarr; "tropical storm-force".
 * done Cyclonebiskit 16:32, 29 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Shortly thereafter, shear picked up and began to separate the low from the deep convection. - "Picked up" is rather informal language.
 * done Cyclonebiskit 16:32, 29 January 2009 (UTC)


 * In general, the meteorological history seems to drag on forever. I think you're trying to squeeze too much information from the discussions, as there is significant redundancy in the text. For example, you mention the wind shear several times in each paragraph.
 * done If more needs to be removed, just let me know Cyclonebiskit 16:32, 29 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Rainfall totals of 4 inches (100 millimetres) to 7 in (180 mm) were possible over southwestern Mexico with isolated totals reaching 10 in (250 mm). - Does it really matter what could have happened?
 * It gives perspective on why people would have to be evacuated from low-lying areas. Cyclonebiskit 16:32, 29 January 2009 (UTC)


 * As Kiko traveled parallel to the coast, heavy rain affected the region for two days - Any rainfall totals, or flooding?
 * Not that I know of. I've searched in numerous places and found nothing. Cyclonebiskit 16:32, 29 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I would really like to see more information on the ship. Here is a useful source.
 * done Cyclonebiskit 16:32, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Overall, I think it's a nice article, a GA for sure. I just don't think enough research has gone into this. The prose needs work, as well. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone  01:46, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the review. Cyclonebiskit 16:32, 29 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Support based on my understanding of the "comprehensiveness" requirement. I'm certain there must have been flooding and mudslides, as with nearly all other storms in Mexico, but there simply isn't any more information. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone  16:06, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Here is a Google scholar search, which might reveal something. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:17, 7 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments
 * Sorry to give you yet another conflicting opinion on the first sentence, but I disagree with Julian's recommendation. I think it's important to establish a context of where this storm was: "Tropical Storm Kiko was a strong tropical storm that capsized a boat off the western coast of Mexico, killing at least 15 people." +western since there are two coastlines, and at first, I figured it was along the eastern one.
 * Done. Cyclonebiskit 21:34, 7 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Naming paragraph doesn't fit well in its current section. Budding Journalist 16:47, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what you mean. How does it not fit? Cyclonebiskit 16:56, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
 * It's just a bit jarring to suddenly switch from describing its impact to its name. Budding Journalist 17:57, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
 * How should I go about fixing this then? Cyclonebiskit 21:34, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Not sure; don't know where it might fit well other than as its own section. What do the Wikiproject guidelines say? Budding Journalist 17:39, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The naming section is fairly new to the project so there haven't been solid guidelines on it. I separated the section for now to see how it works. Cyclonebiskit 17:53, 8 February 2009 (UTC)


 *  Leaning support—a new wannabe Hink, eh? :) A few things:
 * need a second paragraph per WP:LEAD, even if it's relatively short... all it needs are one or two more sentences, some regrouping and a split from what you already have.
 * Personally, I think a second paragraph in the lead would be too much. There isn't enough information to make a second one without being too detailed. Cyclonebiskit 21:34, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
 * There's very little that needs to be added to make a second paragraph; as it is, the effects are not mentioned at all--it reads more like a meteorological list than a summation. -- Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 21:37, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The only known effects were the ship sinking. I've found no information about any impact on land. Cyclonebiskit 21:40, 7 February 2009 (UTC)


 * You repeat this "forecast to hit Mexican coastline" bit twice in the lead, sound repetitive...
 * Done. Cyclonebiskit 21:34, 7 February 2009 (UTC)


 * No link to tropical storm in lead?
 * Done. Cyclonebiskit 18:19, 7 February 2009 (UTC)


 * "Despite the fatalities associated with the capsized ship, the name Kiko was not retired and is included on the list of names for the 2013 Pacific hurricane season." --an explanation that with deaths a name is retired or summat' would help make this sentence more accessible to non-cyclonephiles.
 * Done. Cyclonebiskit 18:19, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

-- Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 16:53, 7 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Support a well written article which is up to the standards of the WPTC Jason Rees (talk) 18:29, 8 February 2009 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.