Talk:Fort Glanville Conservation Park/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Pyrotec (talk) 17:25, 3 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Starting review. Pyrotec (talk) 17:25, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Initial comments
This article looks fairly reasonable as a WP:GAN, but I anticipate that some work will be needed on the prose. For example, I normally leave the WP:lead until last, but "Fort Glanville Conservation Park is a registered heritage conservation area in Semaphore South, South Australia, a seaside suburb of Adelaide. It incorporates Australia's best preserved and most functional 19th century fort, Fort Glanville, and is a registered heritage site, both within South Australia and Australia wide. The fort was built after over 40 years of indecision over the defence of South Australia. It was the first and remains the best preserved colonial fortification in the state." I don't see any need to two consecutive sentences in the same paragraph to repeat "registered heritage" and "best preserved". Also, in the Historic background is the statement "the colonists saw themselves as part of the British Empire". They were part of the Empire, "seeing themselves as part of ..." is a strange way of putting it.

I will now do a more detailed review, section by section, but leaving the WP:Lead until the end. Pyrotec (talk) 20:56, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Will look at this tonight - I would be surprised if some weird grammar and redundancy was not there - Peripitus (Talk) 04:02, 6 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Historic background -
 * Quite a reasonable section. I changed "defence" in the first sentence to "external defence" as that is in keeping with the citation.
 * I'm not sure what "... the state's defence posture" is referring to in the second paragraph. Is it the colony of South Australia, or Australia as a whole that is being discussed?
 * Changed to colony - South Australia was not a state until federation (1901) - Peripitus (Talk) 04:02, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Pyrotec (talk) 22:15, 5 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Foundation -
 * Quite a reasonable section.


 * Personnel -
 * Quite a reasonable section.

....to be continued. Pyrotec (talk) 22:42, 5 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Structure
 * Quite a reasonable section.

Overall summary
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria


 * 1) Is it reasonably well written?
 * A. Prose quality:
 * B. MoS compliance:
 * 1) Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
 * A. References to sources:
 * B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
 * C. No original research:
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. Major aspects:
 * B. Focused:
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Pass or Fail:

Congratulations on the quality of the article. I'm awarding it GA-status. Pyrotec (talk) 09:34, 7 January 2010 (UTC)