Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Effects of Hurricane Isabel in Delaware

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

The article was promoted 20:17, 9 January 2007.

[edit] Effects of Hurricane Isabel in Delaware

Third in the six to nine-part Hurricane Isabel series, and the second going for FAC. I think it certainly meets FA standards, extremely detailed and well-referenced. CrazyC83 02:55, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

• As author, support. Hurricanehink (talk) 03:04, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
• Object Good work, but the article is not yet comprehensive, and lacks the level of inline citation necessary for an FA. Needs a copy edit; the fourth sentence snake "After fluctuating in intensity for four days, Isabel gradually weakened and made landfall on the Outer Banks of North Carolina with winds of 105 mph (165 km/h) on September 18." needs to be broken down. Other sentences are strays: "A hurricane watch was issued as well." Would suggest referral to peer review and resubmission at a later date. + Ceoil 03:32, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
  • What is not comprehensive? What is not inline sourced? I don't see what is wrong with either of those two sentences, either. Hurricanehink (talk) 03:43, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
    • My statement re comprehensiveness was due to the article being relatively brief. But having re-read the article, and the guidelines, I'm striking that. I don't like thoes two sentences, but as they are only quibbles, and the prose is impressively paced throughout - Support + Ceoil 04:23, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
• Did we need two of these on FAC at the same time? (Support, nonetheless) —Cuiviénen 04:35, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
• Support Good article, with many references and details, featured quality. Hello32020 13:22, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
• Support I honestly dislike supporting these hurricane/TS/etc. articles because they're so short as compared to other FAs, but I have no actionable objection. Everything is well-sourced, the images are great (though there are only two, but I could only expect one or two more images taken from Delaware assessing the damage, and that's somewhat unreasonable unless the article's writers are from that state), everything that needs to be explained is explained, the writing flows well, and in general, it's a great article. I can't not support its candidacy. -- Kicking222 19:21, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
• Support. I can't see anything wrong with it—meets all the criteria. Titoxd^(?!?) 02:18, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
• Support. íslenskur fellibylur #12 _(samtal) 03:21, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
• Support It is a very good article. As Kicking222 said, even though its short, everything that needs to be explained is explained. I was also wondering about the length/FA relationship, however at the end of the day the criteria is comprehensiveness, and not simple length. It is well-written and cited as well. So good job! Baristarim 10:40, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - This article is rather similar to Effects of Hurricane Isabel in North Carolina, and I'm assuming an Effects of Hurricane Isabel in New Jersey is coming up soon. Couldn't these all be merged into one Effects of Hurricane Isabel article? The Delaware, North Carolina and New Jersey articles together add up to less than 30k of prose (about 4600 words). It would still leave room for Effects of Hurricane Isabel in Ontario ;) Gimmetrow 06:42, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
  • That's 30 KB for three articles. When you have between six and nine planned, you're getting into dangerous territory... Titoxd^(?!?) 07:32, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Oppose A good article, but rather short. Just H 07:33, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
• Length is obviously the main problem here. The best solution, if more information is available, would be to simply go into more depth and write a couple more paragraphs. If more information isn't available, merging all the Isabel "effects" articles into one might be a good idea, as suggested above. I don't generally like to encourage that kind of thing because separate articles tend to facilitate expansion, but at the same time I just don't really feel like there is enough here for an FA. Everyking 10:29, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Actually, having now looked at Effects of Hurricane Isabel in North Carolina, I think that article is long enough that merging wouldn't be a good idea. I'm pretty sure that this article could be expanded to an adequate length, though; no doubt there was plenty of press coverage locally. Right now the article doesn't have any such references, which strikes me as a problem in its own right. Everyking 10:37, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
• I happen to live in Delaware and remember this well :). There were problems with the declaration of emergency - regular state employees were supposed ot stay home, but "emergency personnel" were supposed to go in to work. The problem is that who is and is not an emergency person is undefined - so toll-booth workers went in to work, for example. I think descriptions of these and other problems should be in the article. Raul654 17:20, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Thanks, sounds like good info. I couldn't find anything on google with a few different searches, though. Could you recommend specific search terms? I did "Hurricane Isabel" Delaware emergency personnel toll, but nothing showed up. Hurricanehink (talk) 19:03, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
    • The best place to search would be here (the News Journal - which can be accessed through delawareonline, is the main newspaper in Delaware) but that search doesn't allow you to access full articles. Raul654 21:30, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
      • Also use the words "Tropical Storm" instead of "Hurricane" as it was a tropical storm when it was at 39°N (approximate latitude). CrazyC83 23:38, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
        • Hmm, I can't find that information anywhere online... :( Hurricanehink (talk) 17:00, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
          • The state emergency management website? Websites of counties or municipalities? CrazyC83 20:29, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

• Why shouldn't this be merged into the main Hurricane Isabel article? Does it make sense to have a featured article that is simply split out from the main article in summary style for strictly organizational and size purposes? Were the effects really only reported by FEMA and the National Hurricane Center? What about effects on people and business, which would be covered by newspapers and magazines, of which there are none in the article? Right now, this is just government statistics: this many people lost power, this was the height of the waves, this was the time a state of emergency was declared, etc. Thus, this article is not comprensive as to the "effects" of the hurricane in delaware. You could rename it "Government-released statistics about Hurricane Isabel in Delaware", but that just brings us back to the problem of having a minutely specific article that is split out as a practical matter, not because it is a distinct encyclopedic subject. —Centrx→talk • 03:51, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment And I say that a featured article should have daughter articles of featured quality if it is going to wrap {{main}} around them. The rest of your objections are actionable, however.--Rmky87 16:24, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment By the way, I am aware that Hurricane Isabel is not a featured article.--Rmky87 21:27, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
      • That is correct that the main Isabel article is not featured; it is under construction currently. As for the reason for splitting, that is simply due to the length of articles as mentioned above. Do we really want a 100k article? CrazyC83 15:17, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

• If it is not clear from the comment above, this article cannot be a featured article because it is not a comprehensive encyclopedia article about the effects of the hurricane in Delaware. The article is simply a regurgitation of statistics from government sources. —Centrx→talk • 10:40, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Many hurricane articles - some of them already featured (see Hurricane Irene (2005) for an example) - are primarily from government articles, as those is often the only sources available. CrazyC83 15:17, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Also, there are four non-governmental sources. Hurricanehink (talk) 15:49, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.