I know you are reworking it, but I am thinking - such detailed impact articles has only happened with Katrina, which is our flagship article! Is the main article getting too long, is that why this was created? Even Katrina doesn't have subarticles for areas far distant from the core! that would need to be made just for Isabel if this becomes a trend...still it is a very good article. B-class. CrazyC83 04:20, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
That is exactly what I plan to do. As stated in the Isabel article, I plan to have subarticles for North Carolina, Virginia, Maryland, Delaware, and Pennsylvania. Hurricanehink (talk) 04:34, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
I was thinking, since NJ was >200 miles from the center, subarticles would be needed in Florida (while no land impact, there was at least one fatality on the water and beach erosion), South Carolina (outer bands left side), District of Columbia, West Virginia (core of the storm), New York (still in the core), New England (although that was kinda far, there might have been impact there), other states farther west? and in Canada (at the end until dissipation on the 20th)...that is 13-14 articles! CrazyC83 05:40, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
I don't think all of those are needed. Florida and South Carolina were minimal, and can easily fit in the main article. D.C. could possibly, though since it is such a small area it might be a bit difficult. West Virginia is possible, though since it is inland there might not be a lot of info. I was looking into doing one for New York, but the effects were fairly minor and there's not too much info. The same goes for New England, though since it is a fairly large area it could be included with NY and could possibly work. I tried finding info for Canada, but I can't find that much, so right now I'm leaning towards no for there. True, NJ is 200 miles from the center, though it was still the fringes of Isabel. Currently, I'm only planning to do the 6 (NC, VA, MD, DE, PA, and NJ), though anyone else can do any of those, or DC or NE if they want to. Perhaps this discussion should be on the Isabel talk page, though. Hurricanehink (talk) 05:46, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
Just a suggestion, the lead right now seems to talk more about Hurricane Isabel as a whole rather than Hurricane Isabel's effects on New Jersey. Now, i'm no expert on summary style, but it just seems a bit off to me, but if summary style is supposed to work this way, well, I guess thats fine. Homestarmy 02:40, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Well, for this article to stand on its own, it needs to give some good info on Hurricane Isabel as a whole before explaining this article in detail. Hurricanehink (talk) 02:51, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
I did find at least one fact in the summary that was unreferenced and unmentioned in the body text... 165 kmh winds. You should double-check everything in the lead to be sure it's referenced somewhere, esp. facts and figures.
I used to wikilink the dates in the "Retrieved on xx-xx-xxxx" in the references section, but recently I saw something somewhere which said that practice is demurred. I'm gonna go back someday or other and fix the ones I made that way.
My point is that we can't be flooding the FAc with articles from the project if there are no articles for FA. Actually, never mind, I don't think this is ready for FA now. Juliancolton (talk) 23:03, 4 December 2007 (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) 19:13, 29 May 2008 (UTC)