Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Grahamec (talk · contribs) 13:14, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is looking good, I once did some small work on this article, but that has little to do with the current state of the article.

• A nit-pick: "he presented a proposal to the cabinet outlining the creation of a tenchological-based university in NSW, as a separate expansion from the existing Sydney Technical College". This does not read well. Perhaps it is intended to say something like "as well as".
  • I have now slightly rewritten this.

• The last sentence:..."which included the building named after her father forty years previously." Has this been mentioned before, I can't see it, maybe it should read: "included a building". Actually I see it now.

• I have changed the caps at the beginning of parenthetical clauses in a couple of places to reflect my understanding of best practice.

• link in ref 42 to citation is broken, Uni Sydney's fault, but the award is confirmed at http://sydney.edu.au/senate/Hons_centenary.shtml

• link in ref 46 is also broken, but it is referred to at http://www.cityofsydney.nsw.gov.au/vision/better-infrastructure/buildings-and-facilities/heffron-hall

• Is it well-written?
• Is it verifiable with no original research?

As noted above a couple of the refs are broken and will have to be fixed if you take it to FAC.

• Is it broad in its coverage?
• Is it neutral?
• Is it stable?
• Is it illustrated?

So I am passing it.--Grahame (talk) 11:24, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]