# Talk:1755 Cape Ann earthquake

This review is transcluded from Talk:1755 Cape Ann Earthquake/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Ealdgyth - Talk 15:30, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
I'll be reviewing this article shortly. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:30, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)
It is reasonably well written.
a (prose):  b (MoS): 
Just one jarring spot in the prose
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references):  b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR): 

It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects):  b (focused): 

It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias: 

It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.: 

It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):  b (appropriate use with suitable captions): 

Overall:
Pass/Fail: 

Specific concerns

Just a note if you're thinking of FAC, the image liscencing will be questioned at FAC, as they are lacking source details for the back bay pic. Not a problem here, though, we're a bit less stringent on dotting the I's and crossing the T's.
Epicenter:
Suggest a bit of reorganization here, as some topics are jumbled together. First we discuss the earthquake in the first paragraph, then the second paragraph discusses modern ideas about it, then suddenly shifts to aftershocks and its effects then suddenly back to modern ideas on causes. Suggest moving the sentence starting "The region experienced..." to the end of the first paragraph, where it seems to me to make more topical sense.
Personal pet peeve, but what does UPNE stand for in current ref 2? Please spell out lesser known abbreviations (things like ESPN, BBC, USA can get away with no explanation, but others won't be well known.)
I've put the article on hold for seven days to allow folks to address the issues I've brought up. Feel free to contact me on my talk page, or here with any concerns, and let me know one of those places when the issues have been addressed. If I may suggest that you strike out, check mark, or otherwise mark the items I've detailed, that will make it possible for me to see what's been addressed, and you can keep track of what's been done and what still needs to be worked on. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:41, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
As there was so little to fix, and the nominator seems to have disappeared, I went ahead and fixed the two concerns and am passing the article. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:15, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

This article is vague about when, etc. there could be another Cape Ann Earthquake.  If references can be found, it be a good addition to this article. Lentower (talk) 03:21, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on 1755 Cape Ann earthquake. 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/20090508011236/http://earthquake.usgs.gov/regional/states/events/1755_11_18.php to http://earthquake.usgs.gov/regional/states/events/1755_11_18.php
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

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) 07:26, 14 June 2017 (UTC)