Talk:Tropical Storm Kika

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Former good article Tropical Storm Kika was one of the Natural sciences good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
Date Process Result
October 29, 2008 Good article nominee Listed
June 14, 2013 Good article reassessment Delisted
Current status: Delisted good article


C-Class for now. A thorough copyedit should bring it up to B. Also, look out for WP:MOSDASH breaches, and avoid using redundant words. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 16:25, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Ok. I think I used "convection" too many times, especially near the end. This storm was harder to pull information out of since about half the advisories were the same thing. and the only real difference between most of them were convection. What word should I switch some of them out for? Also, I'm a bit confused on the MOSDASH thing. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 16:32, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
I usually alternate between "convection" and "thunderstorm activity", although "rain shield" might work as well. I'm not sure if you have to mention every time the convection wanes and re-fires; one sentence noting the fluctuations should suffice. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 16:43, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
I'll see what I can do. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 16:46, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
Just too let you guys know i have webcited the 3 advisories that were from List Serv as these expire after a year or soJason Rees (talk) 00:20, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Tropical Storm Kika (2008)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

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)

GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. 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?
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars etc.:
  6. 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):
  7. Overall:

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)

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)
I've fixed the other sentence. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 15:16, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
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)
 :D thanks! Cyclonebiskit (talk) 15:45, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

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)

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


We could merge this article. Any thoughts? YE Tropical Cyclone 03:50, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

I know you left this comment here more than a year ago, but I agree, this article should be merged. No impact whatsoever, was only a minimal tropical storm, and has an extremely bloated MH. Also, there is no sources outside the warning centers.--12george1 (talk) 22:58, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
Agreed. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:45, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
NO!HurricaneLove05 (talk) 03:20, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
You can't do anything about it. It's not notable, also, please read WP:CIVIL and WP:MERGE. iPhoneHurricane95 03:23, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
JG, be fair here. Let him have an opinion. I agree with him, though it's MH is on the long side. YE Pacific Hurricane 03:25, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
BUT THE STORM IS VERY NOTABLE!!!!!!!HurricaneLove05 (talk) 03:36, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
How? YE Pacific Hurricane 03:37, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
First, tell me what "notable" means, Matthew.CycloneIsaacE-Mail 03:37, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
A 35 knot tropical storm that impacted no land nor prompted any tropical cyclone advisories is not notable. Ships in the vicinity didn't even record tropical storm-force winds. I suggest reading Wikipedia:N for the true meaning of "notable" here. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 03:44, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
Agreed. Kika may have been notable if we were fishes, but per WPTC notability guidelines, Kika is by far one of the best examples of an article failing WP:N. - HurricaneSpin (Talk) 03:48, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
As the author of the page, I have no issues with merging this. Non-notable storm with no impact. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 03:39, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
Agreed. iPhoneHurricane95 04:05, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Umm hello??? Notable - only named central pacific storm of 2007HurricaneLove05 (talk) 04:23, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Kika did not exist in 2007. YE Pacific Hurricane
What YE said (edit conflict). Your argument is invalid. Oh yeah, and to add on, Tropical Storm Erick of 2007's remnants made it to the Central Pacific. Notable? No. Erick is a good example of a merged article failing WP:N. - HurricaneSpin (Talk) 04:31, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
HS, WP:BEANS and WP:N can be extremely subject to such interpretation. But, HL, I have no idea what central pacific storm has to do with anything. It's not a basin after all. YE Pacific Hurricane 04:37, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
There is no way this storm is notable. Plus it appears that there are 6 supporting merge and only 1 against.--12george1 (talk) 04:54, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
A surprisingly weak storm for the time it existed. Didn't affect anything, so say "goodbye" and merge it. United States Man (talk) 05:06, 13 June 2013 (UTC)