# Talk:Tropical Storm Bertha (2002)

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)

No Point of View: Easy pass.
Factualality: I'm not sure, but for now pass.
Broad: Yep. Well done here. Pass
Stable: Pass.
Well written: It's hink's work, easy pass.
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)

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)

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Tropical Storm Bertha (2002)/CommentsTalk:Tropical Storm Bertha (2002)/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.
Last edited at 03:34, 24 October 2006 (UTC).
Substituted at 09:17, 30 April 2016 (UTC)