Talk:Effects of Hurricane Isabel in West Virginia

Assessment
Well done. But can i suggest a new picture at the top for the instead of the Isabel over N.Carolina one? B-Low.Mitchazenia 19:41, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * That is the picture for all Hurricane Isabel articles. Hurricanehink ( talk ) 19:45, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

GA Review

 * GA review (see here for criteria)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * a (fair representation): b (all significant views):
 * 1) It is stable.
 * 2) 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):
 * 1) Overall:
 * a Pass/Fail:
 * a Pass/Fail:

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

FT box
Can someone merge this into the ArticleHistory box please? Tom pw (talk) 20:04, 13 April 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. 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)

Merge?
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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * The article was merged several months ago. --♫ Hurricanehink ( talk ) 04:31, 21 June 2011 (UTC)