Wikipedia:Peer review/Tropical Storm Kiko (2007)/archive1

Tropical Storm Kiko (2007)

 * A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for November 2008.
 * A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for November 2008.

This peer review discussion has been closed. A three time FAC, this article is very close to becoming a feature article. It just needs fine tuning all around, hence the need for a peer review. All thoughts and comments are welcome :) thanks, Cyclonebiskit (talk) 21:16, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Brianboulton comments
 * General: As with most weather articles, this one uses a lot of technical language. The impression is that these articles are written for weather buffs, and there is not much effort made to interest the general reader. A pity, really, because the weather is a great topic for conversation, particularly here in the UK, and I believe that the subject could be made more accessible.
 * Specific points in lead:
 * Being pedantic, the 15 people weren't killed "in Mexico", but "off the coast of Mexico"
 * Second sentence of the lead conjoins unrelated clauses. It should be reorganised along the lines: "Kiko, which peaked just below hurricane lines, was forecast..." etc
 * You need to indicate how a wave that started in the Atlantic entered the Pacific. It must have crossed land - where did this happen?
 * Meteorological History:
 * I suggest you link "convection" to convection (meteorology)
 * Middle of last para, a close repetition of the phrase "weakening trend" reads awkwardly. Suggest rewording.
 * What does "a dryer and more hostile area" mean?
 * Preparations:
 * "in case" is two words
 * Casualties: It looks as though, since nine bodies were never found, the total deaths should be recorded in the lead as 24, not "at least 15", which sounds like a provisional assessment made while there was some possibility that other survivors may be found. Incidentally, the numbers 2 and 9 should be written out.
 * The sentence "Other than the capsized ship, the storm's effects were relatively minor" reads rather heartlessly, like: "Apart from the fact that 24 people died, nothing much happened". Surely this rather grave consequemce shouldn't be dismissed quite that casually?

I hope that these comments are of help to you. Perhaps you would consider helping the peer review process by reviewing another article. Brianboulton (talk) 18:09, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * As a note for the casualty count, I can't assume that the nine missing people were killed according to wiki standards, I'm just going by the available info. I've also fixed the issues you've found. Thanks for the review :) Cyclonebiskit (talk) 18:29, 1 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Not quite all the fixes done. 2 and 9 are still given numerically, and "hostile" is not explained in the context you are using it in. Also I disagree with what you say about the casualties; people whose bodies are never found after a shipwreck are assumed dead (think Titanic etc). However, the last is not a point I wish to press. Brianboulton (talk) 23:10, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Whoops, ok, now I've fixed them. I checked with an administrator, Juliancolton about the fatalities, and he said that the nine missing should be listed as missing not as casualties, unless an article as stated them as such, or it would be considered Original Research. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 23:26, 1 December 2008 (UTC)