Talk:Tropical Storm Bertha (2002)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Tropical Storm Bertha (2002) article.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

	Tropical Storm Bertha (2002) has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a reassessment.
	An entry from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know? column on October 29, 2006.
Article milestones Date Process Result November 10, 2006 Good article nominee Listed May 25, 2008 Good article reassessment Kept Current Status: Good article

	This page is within the scope of WikiProject Tropical cyclones, which collaborates on tropical cyclones and related subjects on Wikipedia. To participate, help improve this article or visit the project page for details.
GA	This article has been rated as GA-Class on the assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance within WikiProject Tropical cyclones.
The following comments have been left for this page: The fixed isohyet rainfall map would be better for this page, as the contour gradients aren't very visible at small thumbnail sizes. Titoxd(?!?) 03:34, 24 October 2006 (UTC) (edit)

[edit] Rainfall image

Unfortunately, that's all that's all that's available. The shading one doesn't exist yet. Hurricanehink (talk) 03:38, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] GA Assessment

1. No Point of View: Easy pass.
2. Factualality: I'm not sure, but for now pass.
3. Broad: Yep. Well done here. Pass
4. Stable: Pass.
5. Well written: It's hink's work, easy pass.
6. Images: Pass

As written #5, well written Pass for now, I have no real complaints for it. Congrats.Mitchazenia(7900+edits) 23:06, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

If you're not sure about factual accuracy of articles, you should not be passing them! – Chacor 16:14, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] GA Sweeps Review: Pass

As part of the WikiProject Good Articles, we're doing sweeps to go over all of the current GAs and see if they still meet the GA criteria. I'm specifically going over all of the "Meteorology and atmospheric sciences" articles. I believe the article currently meets the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. I have made several minor corrections throughout the article. Altogether the article is well-written and is still in great shape after its passing in 2006. Continue to improve the article making sure all new information is properly sourced and neutral. It would also be beneficial to go through the article and update all of the access dates of the inline citations and fix any dead links. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. I have updated the article history to reflect this review. Happy editing! --Nehrams2020 (talk) 21:55, 25 May 2008 (UTC)