Talk:Hurricane Kilo

Hurricane Kilo has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

Hurricane Kilo is part of the 2015 Pacific hurricane season series, a good topic. This is identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
November 12, 2023	Good article nominee	Listed
January 14, 2024	Good topic candidate	Promoted

Current status: Good article

Weather: Tropical / Eastern Pacific Low‑importance

	Weather portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Weather, which collaborates on weather and related subjects on Wikipedia. To participate, help improve this article or visit the project page for details. Articles Requested Project Resources Become a Member Project Talk Assessment A-Class Alerts WeatherWikipedia:WikiProject WeatherTemplate:WikiProject WeatherWeather articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Tropical cyclones portal This article is supported by WikiProject Tropical cyclones (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article is supported by the Pacific hurricane work group (assessed as Low-importance).

Text and/or other creative content from this version of 2015 Pacific hurricane season was copied or moved into Draft:Hurricane Kilo with this edit. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists.

Merge?[edit]

Can we merge this draft with the existing article? The page move tool won’t allow me to do so, asking for admin help from @Hurricanehink. Jay Tee⛈️ 03:51, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Done! ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 23:54, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you!! Jay Tee⛈️ 00:59, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Is this really needed?[edit]

Is the article really needed since Kilo only had minor impacts in Hawaii? Also, it is common for hurricanes to cross the International Date Line. Plus a little tip, for typhoon info on Kilo look at other Wikipedia’s.DachshundLover82 (talk) 16:00, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Considering it's long MH, I see the argument for making an article. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 01:41, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Peak was when it was a hurricane in the CPac not a typhoon in the WPac[edit]

Is there a way to correct the classification of when Kilo peaked? Kilo was never a Cat 4 typhoon; it was a Cat 4 hurricane. ChessEric 23:37, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@ChessEric The infobox was made a while ago, before the new ones were introduced that allow us to differentiate between peaks in each basin. I can update it now. Jay Tee⛈️ 02:07, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oh...I feel stupid because I didn't realize that. XD ChessEric 04:06, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Impacts on Japan[edit]

I found sources on Kilo's impact towards Japan. There is also a Japanese Wikipedia article on this impact as well.

An entire list of news covering the effects can be seen in this link. It would be a good idea to add these to the article, rather than limiting the impact section to Hawaii. luis 💬 21:36, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@JCMLuis I'm a little confused as to what exactly these sources are referring to. There are some articles about rains and flooding from a typhoon but none specifically name Kilo and most of the sources are simply redirects to another website or section that doesn't contain a news article. Jay Tee⛈️ 14:15, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The sources mentions Kilo by its number instead, which is No. 17. I'm not sure if you're talking about the sources from the Japanese Wikipedia article or list of sources from Digital Typhoon, or both. If it is the former, then you should check the archives of those sources in archive websites. I don't know what to do with the other option. I haven't used it much but I thought it would be useful. luis 💬 14:45, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I was referring to the Digital typhoon. I appreciate you linking it, but I don't think there's much I can add from it. However, the Japanese article does have good information on the combined effects of Etau and Kilo's moisture, so I can add that info to this article. Jay Tee⛈️ 17:46, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If I recall, you're supposed to look up the name of the news article from Digital Typhoon on a search engine, then find a source with the corresponding name. But I think that the JP Wikipedia article would be enough to add into the EN Wiki article for Kilo. luis 💬 18:43, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Jay Tee⛈️ 19:45, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Updating just to say that these sources and the Japanese wiki seem to blame most of the damage on Etau, not Kilo. I've clarified this in the article. Thank you for finding the sources though. Jay Tee⛈️ 21:23, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, understood. Thanks for adding the information to the article. :) luis 💬 21:43, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

Passed. —Ganesha811 (talk) 16:37, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This review is transcluded from Talk:Hurricane Kilo/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Ganesha811 (talk · contribs) 19:44, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! This looks very interesting. I'll be reviewing this article, using the template below. If you have any questions, feel free to ask them here. —Ganesha811 (talk) 19:44, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This article now meets the GA standard. Congrats to the nominator and anyone else who worked on it! —Ganesha811 (talk) 16:35, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	Pass, well-written overall. As is my usual practice, made some minor tweaks myself to save us both time.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Pass, not an issue.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	Pass, not an issue.
	2b. 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).	Gismeteo looks like it's fine, all other sources are reliable. The many sources from National Centers for Environmental Information are not actually identical, but are cited identically apart from the URLs. Could some information from the source be used in the citation to make them distinguishable? Provisional pass. @JayTee32:, if you are able to address the citation issue above, that would be great, but it's not enough to keep the article from GA. —Ganesha811 (talk) 16:35, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
	2c. it contains no original research.	Pass, no issues.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	"produced up to an estimated 10,000 cloud-to-ground lightning strikes over a 24-hour period" is a borrowed phrase and should be modified to avoid copyvio. Issue addressed, pass.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	With Japan coverage added recently, not finding anything else of note. Pass.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	No areas of overdetail found during prose review. Pass.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	No issues found. Pass.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	After expansion before GA review (Japan), stable and no outstanding issues on talk page
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	Pass, no issues.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	No issues. Pass.
	7. Overall assessment.

Adjusted the copyvio sentence issue under the Hawaii section. Jay Tee⛈️ 14:56, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.