# Talk:Tropical Storm Danielle (1992)

Wow that's a lot for such a tiny storm! B-class. íslenska hurikein #12 (samtal) 15:04, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I was surprised how much info there was out there. Hurricanehink (talk) 15:07, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm not, the NHC has the massive archive for the 1992 season not just the prelim reports. That gives the press coverage, which was available back then, already researched and online...--Nilfanion (talk) 15:16, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Well, I was surprised when I first saw it. I love the NHC archive. I wish they had the archive extended from 1996 to ~2000, though. It seems storms from 1991 to 1995 have more info than 1996 to 2000. Hurricanehink (talk) 16:06, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Yep, what annoys me more is the 1968-90 period just has the TCRs but the early 60s has the same detailed info as the early 90s. Needs more pics though, the rainfall graphic perhaps?--Nilfanion (talk) 16:10, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Yea, definetly regarding the early 60s/late 50s. Oh yea, I knew there was something I forgot to add. I'll add the rainfall pic. However, there's a damage pic in one of the newspapers. Do you think it would be ok to use that, seeing it's a newspaper cover? Here's a link. I never know with images, but I thought I'd ask. Hurricanehink (talk) 16:28, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Looks like it's fine to use and add to the article. Good find. CapeVerdeWave (talk) 12:50, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Congrats on bringing this article to GA status. Tarret 15:09, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

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) 22:55, 25 May 2008 (UTC)