Talk:Effects of Hurricane Isabel in West Virginia

Effects of Hurricane Isabel in West Virginia was one of the Natural sciences good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
February 23, 2007	Good article nominee	Listed
April 13, 2007	Featured topic candidate	Promoted
May 30, 2008	Good article reassessment	Kept
February 28, 2011	Good article reassessment	Delisted
Current status: Delisted good article

United States: West Virginia

	United States portal This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
	West Virginia portal This redirect is supported by WikiProject West Virginia.

Assessment[edit]

Well done. But can i suggest a new picture at the top for the instead of the Isabel over N.Carolina one? B-Low.Mitch azenia 19:41, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is the picture for all Hurricane Isabel articles. Hurricanehink (talk) 19:45, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

GA review (see here for criteria)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS):
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
a (fair representation): b (all significant views):
It is stable.
It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.
a (tagged and captioned): b lack of images (does not in itself exclude GA): c (non-free images have fair use rationales):
Overall:
a Pass/Fail:

Congratulations!--Rmky87 04:03, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FT box[edit]

Can someone merge this into the {{ArticleHistory}} box please? Tompw (talk) 20:04, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GA Sweeps Review: Pass[edit]

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 2007. 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) 00:21, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge?[edit]

There isn't much info here. It's all "the rains caused flooding that did X, or the winds did Y". I know I wrote it, but I'm a little annoyed at how poor of a job I did. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:47, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to agree honestly. I think any substantial info could easily be condensed into the main Isabel article without issue. Juliancolton (talk) 17:59, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. It is a good article. Some people from West Virginia would prefer to read about the effects on West Virginia into a short article than a big one.81.220.92.161 (talk) 03:51, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article was merged several months ago. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:31, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]