Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Pyrotec (talk) 17:25, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
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)
Pyrotec (talk) 22:15, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
....to be continued. Pyrotec (talk) 22:42, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
A wide-ranging, weel-referenced, well-illustrated article.
Congratulations on the quality of the article. I'm awarding it GA-status. Pyrotec (talk) 09:34, 7 January 2010 (UTC)