Talk:Hurricane Bonnie (1992)

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Hurricane Bonnie (1992) article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Hurricane Bonnie (1992) 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 Bonnie (1992) is part of the 1992 Atlantic 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 7, 2006	Good article nominee	Listed
March 19, 2008	Good article reassessment	Kept
April 16, 2013	Good topic candidate	Promoted

Current status: Good article

Weather: Tropical / Atlantic 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 Atlantic hurricane work group (assessed as Low-importance).

To do

Good job for such a random storm. Quick question, though. The season article says one person was killed on St. Michaels. Is there any validity to that? Also, the storm history can probably be trimmed a bit, but all in all, good work. Hurricanehink (talk) 15:24, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I made a hidden note in the Impact section suggesting that I couldn't find anything about that reported fatality. Hence I left it out. CrazyC83 15:46, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, ok. Hurricanehink (talk) 20:10, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

GA review

Would it be possible to extend the impact section and add some images (if there are any)? Otherwise it is well referenced. But it might be a good idea to add the references for the third tropical storm and second hurricane info given in the lead sentence. And maybe put some sections in the history section to overview the stages of the hurricane.. Putting it on hold, will come back later in a week.. Baristarim 14:52, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would not agree with splitting the storm history. It's not remarkably long (Hurricane Wilma, for example), and the general wikiproject standard is not to split storm history up - even more so for a hurricane that did nothing. There is nothing special about the storm's history (unlike Wilma or Katrina), so that really isn't needed imo. Secondly, it may not be possible to extend the impact section. You need to bear in mind that this is a storm that did not affect land. – Ch acor 14:21, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, it is generally frowned upon to have the references for the numbers on the lede; those belong in the season article, 1992 Atlantic hurricane season. Tito xd^(?!?) 19:31, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I took a look at the other GA Hurricane articles and a closer look at this one, and it largely meets the GA criteria. The subject matter, considering the difficulties that could be experienced with its scope, is adequately dealt with. Congratulations! Baristarim 00:53, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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 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) 07:47, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]