Talk:Effects of Hurricane Isabel in Canada

GAC
I have graded this article on the following criteria:


 * 1) Well-written:
 * 2) Factually accurate:
 * 3) Broad:
 * 4) Neutrally written:
 * 5) Stable:
 * 6) Well-referenced:
 * 7) Images:

Therefore the article passes, and is promoted to Good Artilce. Jay32183 02:40, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

GA Sweeps Review: Pass
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. 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) 19:01, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Merge?
So, I've been thinking, the effects in Canada are so minimal. If that was a regular storm article that did that, it would've been merged years ago. I really don't think the content in there is any more than what could fit in the regular Hurricane Isabel article, which hasn't exceeded its size limits yet. ♫ Hurricanehink ( talk ) 23:38, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Agree. I think it would totally fit into's Isabel main article.--12george1 (talk) 20:46, 16 April 2013 (UTC)