539:
518:
501:
473:
452:
429:
417:
396:
379:
366:
339:
323:
129:
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
128:
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
66:
62:
186:
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?
133:
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.
47:
39:
55:
17:
297:
495:
183:
Quite a reasonable section. I changed "defence" in the first sentence to "external defence" as that is in keeping with the citation.
390:
32:
333:
356:
157:
Will look at this tonight - I would be surprised if some weird grammar and redundancy was not there -
560:
270:
222:
204:
164:
149:
109:
94:
201:
161:
487:
124:, but I anticipate that some work will be needed on the prose. For example, I normally leave the
301:
556:
266:
218:
145:
105:
90:
442:
137:
125:
512:
121:
198:
158:
552:
262:
214:
141:
101:
86:
551:
Congratulations on the quality of the article. I'm awarding it GA-status.
136:
I will now do a more detailed review, section by section, but leaving the
511:
B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with
197:- South Australia was not a state until federation (1901) -
309:
A wide-ranging, weel-referenced, well-illustrated article.
494:
A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have
74:
43:
376:B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
8:
120:This article looks fairly reasonable as a
18:Talk:Fort Glanville Conservation Park
7:
449:Fair representation without bias:
24:
537:
516:
499:
471:
450:
427:
415:
394:
377:
364:
337:
321:
1:
538:
517:
500:
472:
451:
428:
416:
395:
378:
365:
338:
322:
561:09:34, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
285:Quite a reasonable section.
271:22:42, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
255:Quite a reasonable section.
238:Quite a reasonable section.
223:22:15, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
205:04:02, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
165:04:02, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
150:20:56, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
110:17:25, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
95:17:25, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
576:
363:A. References to sources:
307:
491:to illustrate the topic?
315:reasonably well written
409:broad in its coverage
261:....to be continued.
391:No original research
496:fair use rationales
470:No edit wars, etc:
174:Historic background
131:Historic background
414:A. Major aspects:
352:factually accurate
320:A. Prose quality:
523:Well illustrated.
513:suitable captions
506:Well illustrated.
100:Starting review.
567:
541:
540:
520:
519:
503:
502:
475:
474:
454:
453:
431:
430:
419:
418:
398:
397:
384:Well referenced.
381:
380:
371:Well referenced.
368:
367:
341:
340:
325:
324:
116:Initial comments
79:
70:
51:
575:
574:
570:
569:
568:
566:
565:
564:
294:
292:Overall summary
140:until the end.
118:
60:
37:
31:
29:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
573:
571:
549:
548:
547:
546:
545:
544:
536:Pass or Fail:
528:
527:
526:
525:
524:
509:
508:
507:
482:
481:
480:
479:
478:
461:
460:
459:
458:
457:
438:
437:
436:
435:
434:
424:
423:
422:
405:
404:
403:
402:
401:
387:
386:
385:
374:
373:
372:
348:
347:
346:
345:
344:
330:
329:
328:
293:
290:
289:
288:
287:
286:
280:
279:
259:
258:
257:
256:
250:
249:
242:
241:
240:
239:
233:
232:
212:
211:
210:
209:
208:
207:
188:
187:
184:
178:
177:
170:
169:
168:
167:
117:
114:
113:
112:
80:
28:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
572:
563:
562:
558:
554:
543:
542:
535:
534:
532:
529:
522:
521:
514:
510:
505:
504:
497:
493:
492:
490:
489:
483:
477:
476:
469:
468:
466:
462:
456:
455:
448:
447:
445:
444:
439:
433:
432:
425:
421:
420:
413:
412:
410:
406:
400:
399:
392:
388:
383:
382:
375:
370:
369:
362:
361:
359:
358:
353:
349:
343:
342:
335:
331:
327:
326:
319:
318:
316:
312:
311:
310:
306:
305:
303:
300:review – see
299:
291:
284:
283:
282:
281:
278:
275:
274:
273:
272:
268:
264:
254:
253:
252:
251:
247:
244:
243:
237:
236:
235:
234:
230:
227:
226:
225:
224:
220:
216:
206:
203:
200:
196:
192:
191:
190:
189:
185:
182:
181:
180:
179:
175:
172:
171:
166:
163:
160:
156:
155:
154:
153:
152:
151:
147:
143:
139:
134:
132:
127:
123:
115:
111:
107:
103:
99:
98:
97:
96:
92:
88:
85:
81:
78:
77:
73:
68:
64:
59:
58:
54:
49:
45:
41:
36:
35:
26:
19:
550:
530:
485:
464:
441:
426:B. Focused:
408:
355:
351:
336:compliance:
314:
308:
304:for criteria
296:
295:
276:
260:
245:
228:
213:
194:
173:
135:
130:
119:
83:
82:
75:
71:
57:Article talk
56:
52:
33:
30:
193:Changed to
44:visual edit
357:verifiable
229:Foundation
277:Structure
246:Personnel
199:Peripitus
159:Peripitus
84:Reviewer:
27:GA Review
486:contain
484:Does it
302:WP:WIAGA
553:Pyrotec
531:Overall
443:neutral
263:Pyrotec
215:Pyrotec
142:Pyrotec
138:WP:Lead
126:WP:lead
102:Pyrotec
87:Pyrotec
67:history
48:history
34:Article
488:images
465:stable
463:Is it
440:Is it
407:Is it
350:Is it
313:Is it
202:(Talk)
195:colony
162:(Talk)
122:WP:GAN
76:Watch
16:<
557:talk
354:and
267:talk
219:talk
146:talk
106:talk
91:talk
63:edit
40:edit
389:C.
334:MoS
332:B.
559:)
533::
515::
498::
467:?
446:?
411:?
393::
360:?
317:?
298:GA
269:)
221:)
148:)
108:)
93:)
65:|
46:|
42:|
555:(
265:(
248:-
231:-
217:(
176:-
144:(
104:(
89:(
72:·
69:)
61:(
53:·
50:)
38:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.