Wikipedia:Featured article review/Hurricane Isabel/archive1

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was delisted by Nikkimaria via FACBot (talk) 2:23, 5 April 2025 (UTC) [1].

Hurricane Isabel

Notified: Hurricanehink, Hurricane Noah, Zzzs, WikiProject Weather, WikiProject United States, [[Noticed 06-12-21|]]

Review section

As noted in December 2021 by Hurricane Noah, this 2007 FA does not make use of significant scholarly literature published on the subject, and thus may not meet FA criterion 1c).

In November 2024, the article was significantly expanded when three subtopic articles were moved in; the three resultant lengthy paragraphs in "Elsewhere" seem unduly detailed. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:03, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ah @FAR coordinators: , I appear to have misremembered the one-per-week nomination limit as two-per-week. Would you mind effecting whichever procedure is used when some blunderer like myself makes such an error? Apologies to all I pinged/notified unnecessarily ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:11, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fine to proceed. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:17, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if this has proceeded yet, but I'll reply to this one. I've been very busy this past week but I finally got around to looking at the article. I have cut down on the sub-articles that were merged over the last year, and I've updated a lot of references. I'm going to work on adding more scholarly information as well. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:35, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a few journal articles. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:22, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hurricanehink, do you think enough material has been added, or do you intend to continue? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:01, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I added the relevant journals about Isabel as a whole, and just added another interesting bit about its met history. However, I opted not to include journal articles that cover more state-specific details, like in North Carolina, Virginia, or Maryland, since most of those are already covered by other sources. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:13, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hurricane Noah, do you feel there are any details which need adding? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:23, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the additions cover the relevant scholarly literature. Noah, BSBA^Talk 12:46, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Hurricane Isabel was the strongest Atlantic hurricane since Mitch," - this is in the leading clause of the article, but it's the only reference to Hurricane Mitch in the entire article
Likewise, the lead includes comparisons to Irma and Dorian that aren't made in the body of the article and aren't sourced anywhere

(Possibly) more to follow Hog Farm _talk 23:29, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yea Hog farm, that happens sometimes in the lead, sorry I didn't check that, it's a spot where some weather enthusiasts like to add dubious records. I changed it to something much more accurate, and added sources backing up what I added. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 23:53, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

" Throughout its path, Isabel resulted in $5.5 billion in damage (2003 USD) and 51 deaths, of which 16 were directly related to the storm's effects" - I'm having trouble getting this to reconcile with the $3.6 billion figure used elsewhere in the article. I know damage estimates are inherently subjective and will vary, but $1.9 billion is a pretty wide variance
"Parts of coastal Virginia, especially in the Hampton Roads and Northeast North Carolina areas," - this should be rephrased, as Northeast North Carolina is not part of Virginia
Parts of the deaths & damage table aren't supported by the sourced content in the article - the indirect fatalities in MD & VA, the breakdown of damage between MD & VA, the indirect vs direct death breakdown for NJ
"Across the state, the storm resulted in about $10 million in damage" - the table says $20 million
"Statewide, damage totaled $25 million." - table says $50 million
"Statewide, the hurricane left at least $45 million in damage" - table says $90 million
Is the energy company PECO or Peco?
The inclusion of 14 items in see also seems a bit excessive to me
Outer Bank Guidebooks appears to be the personal website of Fred Hurteau - would this still be considered a high-quality RS?
I also don't know that the Sunbelt Rentals "Marketing Bulletin" is a high-quality RS. This is used twice as separate citations
" Washington County, Rhode Island High Surf Event Report. National Climatic Data Center= (Report). Retrieved March 9, 2025." - is the = intentional? This is not the only citation where such a symbol appears

I'm going to be honest - I'm a bit confused as to where some of those numbers in the death & damage table are coming from. Checking the version promoted in 2007, the damage numbers in the article body are different than what's in there now - $90 million for NY, $100,000 for VT instead of none, etc. Were the damage estimates revised? Hog Farm _talk 02:07, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Most of this is well beyond my pay grade, however as a Philadelphian I can confidently answer the question, "[i]s the energy company PECO or Peco?" - the trademark of the business formerly known as Philadelphia Electric Company, a subsidiary of Exelon, is properly rendered in all-caps as PECO. The full name is actually PECO Energy Company, but the only place in Philadelphia where you'll see it referred to by its full name is in a lawsuit. PECO is, for all intents and purposes, its proper name. I've made the correction to the article. ^{(And spelled "Exelon" wrong in the edit summary, whoops)} – ⓣⓡⓢ ⑨ⓚ 20:15, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Hog Farm for the review. Yea... this is gonna take more time than I'm able to handle at the moment. Given the issues presented, and the likelihood for merging another article (the Delaware sub-effects), I endorse delisting this as a featured article. (I guess also ping Nikkimaria?) ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:11, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sadly, I have to concur with a delist here; things appear to have been badly scrambled during the series of merges. Hog Farm _talk 15:53, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi both, process-wise the review section isn't the place to declare delists, but given your comments I've moved this to FARC. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:43, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

Issues raised in the review section include verifiability and sourcing. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:43, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delist per my comments above. Hog Farm _talk 22:06, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delist as original FAC nominator. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:06, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delist per Hurricanehink; if they can't save it I doubt many can ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:52, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Closing note: This removal candidate has been delisted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please leave the {{featured article review}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:23, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.