# Talk:South African War Memorial (South Australia)

This review is transcluded from Talk:South African War Memorial (South Australia)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

This article is in decent shape, but it needs more work before it becomes a Good Article.
Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct: 
In the Background section, "In 1899", it would be best if is a comma placed after "1889". Same section, it would be best if "British Empire" is linked once, per here.
Check. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 22:35, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation: 
In the lead, this sentence ---> "The memorial is located in front of main entrance to", is missing a word, maybe adding "the" after "of". Same section, "6th of June, 1904" needs to be fixed to "6 June 1904", per here.
Half-check. "6th of June, 1904" needs to be fixed. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE)
Oops! Fixed that - thanks! - Bilby (talk) 22:53, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
Check. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 14:38, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?
A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline: 
It would be best if the book sources use {{cite book}} template.
Check. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 22:35, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose): 

C. It contains no original research: 

D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism: 

Is it broad in its coverage?
A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic: 

B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style): 

Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each: 

Is it stable?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute: 

Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content: 

B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions: 

Overall:
Pass or Fail: 
If the statements above can be answered, I will pass the article. Good luck with improving this article!
--  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 16:13, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks heaps for reviewing the article! Hopefully I've taken care of the problems:
In regard to the overlinking and missing comma, I've fixed both. (I seem to recall stupidly removing the comma at some point - no idea what I was thinking). :)
I've also got no idea how I managed to miss the missing word in the lead, either. Thanks for picking it up.
In regard to cite book, I checked, and they should all be good now. The two books are Inglis and Cameron. Richardson's "The National War Memorial, Adelaide: an historical study" is a bit odd, as it is a report rather than a book: probably best compared to an honours thesis. So I've used cite paper as the only template that I thought was appropriate, rather than cite book. The others are all journal articles, websites or newspaper articles, so they shouldn't be problem.
Thanks again for taking the time to go over the article - hopefully I've fixed the problems you identified, but if I missed something just let me know. :) - Bilby (talk) 22:27, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
Thank to Bilby for getting the stuff I left at the talk page, because I have gone off and placed the article as GA. Congrats. ;) --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 14:38, 11 September 2008 (UTC)