Talk:Tropical Storm Bonnie (2016)

Tropical Storm Bonnie (2016) 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.

Tropical Storm Bonnie (2016) is part of the Off-season Atlantic hurricanes 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
July 10, 2016	Good article nominee	Listed
November 28, 2016	Good topic candidate	Promoted

Current status: Good article

Weather: Tropical / Atlantic / Non-tropical 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).
	This article is supported by the Non-tropical storms task force (assessed as Low-importance).

Extratropical?

One question... is Bonnie currently extratropical? Or did Bonnie really become extratropical? Typhoon2013 (talk) 18:54, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Typhoon2013: According to the final NHC discussion Bonnie didn't become extratropical but got sheared apart. However on which day Bonnie degenerated into a remnant low depends on whether we use Atlantic Standard Time per the advisory, which gives June 4, or UTC, which gives June 5. ~ KN2731 {talk} 02:48, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Tropical Storm Bonnie (2016)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: 12george1 (talk · contribs) 22:49, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I noticed you nominated this and today I have time to review it. Btw, I know you're relatively new to the project and I haven't had gotten around to thank for your contributions. Anyway, I have a few issues with the content of this article, but I'd be glad to pass this and list it as a Good Article, providing that these issues are fixed or responded to in a timely manner. I usually don't include all of those tables and templates when reviewing an article. I'll makes notes for you or just quote parts of the article and explain what should be fixed.--12george1 (talk) 22:49, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lead paragraphs

"in May 2016. The second storm of the 2016 Atlantic hurricane season," - Shorten "2016 Atlantic hurricane season" to simply "season" because it has already been established based on the title and the opening sentence that this occurred in 2016

Fixed. ~ KN2731 {talk} 09:50, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"a few days before the official hurricane season began on June 1." - Avoid linking to articles more than once in the same section, and especially not in the same sentence.

Removed the link. ~ KN2731 {talk} 09:50, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Bonnie intensified into a tropical storm the next day" - I think you should replace "the next day" with May 28, because you might confuse some people into thinking that happened on June 2.

That's true. ~ KN2731 {talk} 09:50, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"and reached its peak intensity six hours later." - Since peak intensity is based on minimum barometric pressure, it technically wouldn't be accurate to say that. I think you should remove that part.

Changed that to just the winds. Is that more accurate now? ~ KN2731 {talk} 09:50, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Bonnie weakened to a depression hours before making landfall just east of Charleston, South Carolina at that strength." - Remove "at that strength" and replace it was the date of landfall (May 29).

Replaced. ~ KN2731 {talk} 09:50, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"On June 2, Bonnie regenerated into a tropical depression as conditions became slightly more favorable." - There should be a general location for this. Insert "offshore North Carolina" between "depression" and "as" should suffice

Added, and linked North Carolina. ~ KN2731 {talk} 09:50, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Although I notice that you did link terms like wind shear and sea surface temperature in the Meteorological history section, it wouldn't hurt to do that also in the lead section.

Linked. ~ KN2731 {talk} 09:50, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Bonnie reintensified into a tropical storm and reached its secondary peak intensity." - Now because this was the actual peak intensity, there's not really a need to say "secondary".

Intended to mean it peaked for the second time, but it's indeed better without the "secondary". ~ KN2731 {talk} 09:50, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That second paragraph should be a little bit longer. More info could be mentioned about impact in Jasper County, such as the fact that "four buildings sustained major damage and ten others experienced minor damage, primarily within the town of Ridgeland."

Expanded the paragraph, and also added tidbits about its impacts in the Outer Banks. ~ KN2731 {talk} 14:02, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Meteorological history

"At the time, the depression was moving west-northwestwards in response to a low" - According to this, the depression developed about 435 miles (695 km) southeast of Charleston, South Carolina. Insert that information as something like this: "At the time, the depression located about 435 miles (695 km) southeast of Charleston, South Carolina and was moving west-northwestwards in response to a low"

Used a slightly different phrasing, but it looks okay. ~ KN2731 {talk} 13:50, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"—a minimum pressure of 1007 mbar (hPa; 29.74 inHg) was attained three hours earlier." - Since this was not the actual peak intensity, it's kinda of an excessive detail, so it probably should be removed.

Removed. ~ KN2731 {talk} 13:50, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"dissipated due to more than 40 knots of southerly shear." - This is more of a project standard, rather than Wikipedia-wide, but we don't use knots in our articles. Replace that with 46 mph (74 km).

I'd replace that with 74 km/h :P ~ KN2731 {talk} 13:50, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Preparations, impact and records

Include the date and time that the tropical storm warning was discontinued. That information can be found here.

Inserted that just after the first sentence. ~ KN2731 {talk} 12:07, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"total rainfall accumulations from Bonnie ranged from 4.60 inches (117 mm) in Beaufort, to 10.43 inches (265 mm) in Ridgeland." - According to this, 4.60 inches wasn't the lowest rainfall total in the state. However, I would remove it and emphasize that 10.43 inches was the highest total. My suggestion would be to reword that part of the sentence like this: "total rainfall accumulations peaked at 10.43 inches (265 mm) in Ridgeland."

Used a different wording, is that okay? ~ KN2731 {talk} 12:07, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"spilling 75,000 to 100,000 gallons of discharge" - Using a website like Google, find the conversions to liters and include them in parenthesis.

Added that. ~ KN2731 {talk} 12:07, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I forgot about this before I pressed the save button. Look for more impact in North Carolina. Here's something to start with [1].

Managed to find enough sources to form a new paragraph. ~ KN2731 {talk} 14:02, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This contains a bit more impact in other counties in the NWS Charleston, South Carolina, area.

Used that to add about road closures and winds. ~ KN2731 {talk} 14:02, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"and only the third occurrence since 1951." - According to the source, this was the second time; 2012 was the first.

Oops, I misunderstood this one since 1951 had two preseason storms too. Fixed that. ~ KN2731 {talk} 13:50, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@12george1: I hope I've managed to address all of the above issues. Thanks for your guidance, and taking the time to review this article. ~ KN2731 {talk} 14:02, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@KN2731: Nice work. I made a few edits myself for stuff that might have been difficult to explain or could have made this review annoyingly long if I listed them all above. I will now pass this article.--12george1 (talk) 19:43, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]