# Talk:Hurricane Isbell

Storm history does not need to be split into stub sections. Neither does preps. Needs more general work - preps, impact (which really is very little once you remove the rainfall image), images, cite web/news, infobox pic doesn't work. – Chacor 11:22, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

The citing still needs sorting.--Nilfanion (talk) 22:32, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
Have lowered back to start. Would appreciate the article meeting WP:MOSDATE regarding date links. – Chacor 15:44, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Hurricane Isbell/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Hurricanehink (talk · contribs) 17:56, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

The first sentence could be jazzier. Perhaps something like "was the final hurricane to affect the United States during the 1964 season" or something?
"The eleventh nameable storm" - eh, you could just say the 11th TS
" diffused frontal trough" - this is probably too advanced for the lead, and for the layman. You could just say "dissipating cold front"
"the storm began to weaken and fell Category 1 hurricane" - I would say the grammar needs to be fixed, but instead, I'll say that the exact category isn't needed here (the SSHS wasn't invented yet), so just a general weakening trend is fine.
"Several tornadoes in Florida caused significant damage overall." - why is the "overall" here? It seems superfluous, but perhaps it isn't
Generally, I try and include all damage totals in the lead that would show up in the infobox. You say $10 million in damage in the US, so I'm assuming $20 million in Cuba. That's worth saying, especially as the Cuban total is more than US.
"it is analyzed to have become a tropical depression by 12:00 UTC (8:00 a.m. EDT)" - when? On the 7th? The infobox says the 8th, the MH only mentions the 7th previously, so you should say which date, especially due to the subsequent sentence.
Why do you include the EDT? Most other articles don't do that.
"with radar imagery indicating little to no reflectivity along the backside of the storm." - what does that mean? I think I know, but if I'm not sure, the layman sure isn't.
Any reason in particular that you have the watches and warnings section? Most articles don't, I'm just curious.
"The aviation severe weather forecast also notified people that within an area south and east of a line from 60 mi (97 km) southwest of Miami north to Gainesville, as well as to 40 mi (64 km) north of Daytona Beach" - o.O - why so complicated? Why not say "also notified residents in south and central Florida"
"In the afternoon, they completed office preparations and scheduling, they also checked equipment." - this seems clunky
"with more than half of which was attributed to agricultural losses." - clunky
"Residents in nearby Lee Cypress, stated that the effects" - is Lee Cypress a town? Why the comma
All in all, a good read! Good job User:TheAustinMan, User:Cyclonebiskit, and User:12george1. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk)  17:56, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

I believe that I have fixed all of these issues now--12george1 (talk) 19:55, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Hurricane Isbell. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080921102626/http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/hurdat/ushurrlist18512007.txt to http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/hurdat/ushurrlist18512007.txt
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070311045226/http://repository.wrclib.noaa.gov/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1002&context=nws_tech_memos to http://repository.wrclib.noaa.gov/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1002&context=nws_tech_memos
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:23, 6 April 2017 (UTC)