Colonel William A. Phillips

This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

United States: Massachusetts Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Massachusetts (assessed as Low-importance). Earthquakes Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Earthquakes, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of earthquakes, seismology, plate tectonics, and related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EarthquakesWikipedia:WikiProject EarthquakesTemplate:WikiProject EarthquakesWikiProject Earthquakes articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

	1755 Cape Ann earthquake has been listed as one of the Geography and places good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones Date Process Result December 17, 2009 Good article nominee Listed
	A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on October 21, 2009. The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that when sailors more than 320 kilometres (200 mi) off the coast of Massachusetts felt the 1755 Cape Ann earthquake, they thought their ship had run aground?

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)[reply]

I'll be reviewing this article shortly. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:30, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]