Talk:1755 Cape Ann earthquake/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

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)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   Just one jarring spot in the prose

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. 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):

7. 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)