Talk:Cork Courthouse, Washington Street

Help organizing references

Hi all, I've just added some info from Dr. Butler's book on Irish courthouses. I'd like to list the references in a style similar to Saint_Fin_Barre's_Cathedral, but I'm not sure how to go about it. Any help would be much appreciated. There are 8 references to the book, and they refer, in order at the time of writing, to the following pages: 87, 87, 87, 88, 88, 88, 88, 88. Thanks. Xx78900 (talk) 14:47, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Hi. I've done most of the reformatting for you. You can change the page numbers yourself. Guliolopez (talk) 15:48, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks! Xx78900 (talk) 16:24, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Article rating

I've taken the liberty of changing this article's rating from Start-class to C class, but I think it might fit B-class criteria. I don't feel comfortable marking it as such because I did a significant amount of the editing and I'm relatively new to wikipedia, so please change it if you think it deserves it, or tell me here if you think it doesn't! Xx78900 (talk) 16:33, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

I am not an expert on ratings but it looks pretty good to me! Dormskirk (talk) 16:37, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Cork Courthouse, Washington Street/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Unexpectedlydian (talk · contribs) 11:38, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Hi Xx78900, I'll be taking this on. Comments to follow shortly in the table below! Unexpectedlydian^♯4talk^‽ 11:38, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Hi again @Xx78900, I started the review with a source-check. Unfortunately I think I've come across quite a few instances of close paraphrasing, where the text in the article is worded or structured very similarly to the text in the source. I'll pause reviewing the article for now to give you an opportunity to review my comments below. Do let me know what you think. Unexpectedlydian^♯4talk^‽ 14:55, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Unexpectedlydian, thanks for the review! Yes I'm unsurprised at the issues you've outlined: this was the first article which I dedicated significant time to editing and as such I thought that there were likely to be a few niggly bits cropping up like that. I'll make adjustments accordingly now. Xx78900 (talk) 15:29, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

I've had a look and made a few adjustments. Regarding the close paraphrasing, I'm really unsure how to correct some of these, particularly for those that are essentially just lists of architectural details. I would appreciate any advice you might have in that regard.Xx78900 (talk) 15:52, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Thank you, that's very helpful. I've left some suggestions below. Hopefully this gives you an idea of how I personally might avoid close paraphrasing; I will point out that I can't access all of the sources, so I would massively appreciate it if you could check some of the larger ones for close-paraphrasing. Burns, O'Connor & O'Riordan 2019 has a lot of references, McNamara 1981 also looks like a big one. Do ping me if you have any questions! Unexpectedlydian^♯4talk^‽ 17:08, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Xx78900, just letting you know that I've completed the initial review. I will refrain from assessing against criteria 1a for now, because there are likely to be further textual changes. I'll check 1a at the end. As mentioned above, do let me know if you need any assistance when addressing changes in criteria 2d. I'd be hugely grateful if you could check for close paraphrasing in the sources mentioned above as well. Many thanks! Unexpectedlydian^♯4talk^‽ 10:17, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Unexpectedlydian, due to my personal life getting quite hectic, I'm not going to have the time to be on wikipedia much over the coming weeks, so I thank you for your time, but I'm going to rescind this article's nomination. Thanks. Xx78900 (talk) 10:06, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Hey @Xx78900, no problem at all. I hope to see you around again if you’re able to be back on Wikipedia. Take care of yourself! :) Unexpectedlydian^♯4talk^‽ 10:10, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Lead sections The lead is very short. I'd suggest adding detail from the History and Architecture sections. Layout Y Words to watch None identified Fiction N/A List incorporation N/A
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	Citations and sources are in the appropriate places.
	2b. 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).	I wonder if you could help me understand the reliability of anderkrogt.com, it appears to be self-published? Source check "Teach Cúirte Chorcaí, Sráid Washington". courts.ie. Y "Cork Court Office - Civil and Family". courts.ie. Y "Cork Court Office - Crime". courts.ie. Y Bracken, Gregory; Bracken, Audrey (2018) Y Cork County Council. 2018. The link doesn't work, I'd suggest linking to an archived version. Following the implementation of the Local Government (Ireland) Act 1898, which established county councils in every county There is no mention of this in the source. Maybe another citation or note for context would help. What the source was establishing here was just that the courthouse building had housed the county council. The quoted section is an established fact, one which I would find unlikely to be challenged in a meaningful manner, so I didn't attach a citation. I can do so now if you would prefer? Furthermore, with the benefit of a few years editing experience I can see that the source used is inadequate to establish the facts provided here, I'll change it in the coming days when I can access one of my books on the courthouse, which I am certain will have this detail also mentioned. Bear with me. Thanks, not too worried about the 1898 Act having an explicit source. If you are able to find another source that would be great. previously used exclusively as a courthouse I'm not sure what you mean by this? It's a related clause to the preceding the back portion of the top floor of the building, previously used exclusively as a courthouse, as in to say that the back portion of the top floor had up to this point only been used as a courthouse. Got it, thanks! "Courthouse, Washington Street, Cork City". buildingsofireland.ie. There don't seem to be any corresponding citations for this source. Maybe it could go into a "Further reading" section instead? Citation 33, author listed as "NIAH" is tied to this source. Oh I see, thanks for clarifying! Cronin, Maura (1994) See below for instances of close-paraphrasing to this source. Cronin, Tom (2012) See below for instances of close-paraphrasing to/direct copying of this source. Dunne & Philips (1999) Y Holohan, Patrick (2006) The hyperlink doesn't link to the PDF, I'd suggest linking to an archived version (which does work). The link does bring me directly to the PDF, not sure what the craic is there, but I have attached the archived version all the same. Strange, thanks for linking though :) This original courthouse was described as being in a "decayed and perishing condition" Can you say by whom? This is attributed to another source within this article, a newspaper from 1829. I can try and dig it up. Not essential, was just wondering if the quotation could be attributed. As the building lies within the Zone of Archaeological Potential for Cork City, all excavation had to be monitored. This is on p.103, not p.77. Corrected.
	2c. it contains no original research.	All statements are backed up by citations and sources - content that there has been no OR.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	I have spotted instances of close paraphrasing which I suggest you change. In some instances I am being more cautious than in others, and I am open to being challenged on the basis of WP:LIMITED if you think that applies: Article: back portion of the top floor of the building. Source: e back portion of the top floor of the Courthouse Now reads rear of the upper floor of the building. Article: and that many of the establishments providing furniture had evaded the local manufacture clause. Source: and that many of the large city establishments supplying the furniture had evaded the local manufacture clause This is a case where I feel as though it is difficult to reword and retain the meaning. Any suggestions? See WP:FIXCLOSEPARA for some general points, including "review information from reliable sources, extract the salient points, and use your own words, style and sentence structure to draft text for an article". I find it useful to think about what is happening in general, rather than focus on details. I might suggest rewording most of this paragraph, as I see it is mainly backed up by ref [14]. Here's a suggestion (which also addresses the bullet point below): "Tradesman and craftsmen in Cork pressured the Corporation into ensuring that elements of the buildings' construction and decoration would only be fulfilled by local suppliers. It later transpired that this contract was not honoured; plumbing was undertaken by a Scottish company, and local craftsmen had to campaign for the furniture to be replaced with local items." Article: secured the removal of all imported furniture from the building, all of which were substituted with locally crafted items. Source: secured the removal of all imported furniture from the building, and the substitution of locally made items. Article: Both have timber panelling to door height on three sides. Source: Courtrooms 1 and 2 have timber panelling to door height around three sides. Again, I'm not sure how this information can be retained and rewritten. Perhaps "Door height timber panelling rises on three sides of courtrooms 1 and 2"? Or something like "Three sides of the two courtrooms are lined with roughly door-height timber panelling"? Article: The original timber, leather-upholstered seating has been kept, along with timber panelled doors, moulding, and architrave. Some of these have timber pediments. Source: They retain the original timber seating with leather upholstery; timber panelled doors with timber moulding and architrave, some with timber pediments. For a list of details, I don't know how to rewrite substantially more than I have done without losing the meaning. Would it be better to remove it? I don't think you have to remove all of the detail. The issue here is that the sentence-structure is very similar to that which is in the source. Maybe you could change to something like "Elements of the original architecture have been retained, including the leather-upholstered seating, and the moulding and architrave around the rooms". Article: The limestone used for the portico was cut from stone sourced from Carrigacrump, Cork, while the rest of the limestone was principally sourced from Beaumont and Gillabbey. Source: It appears that only the portico was cut in Carrigacrump stone, the rest of the limestone being principally supplied from Beaumont and Gillabbey. Article: Unlike the rest of the building, the original portico survived the fire. Source: Unlike the rest of the building, the portico survived the fire intact I have spotted where material has been directly lifted from the source: Article: Subsidiary double-pitched slate roofs are set between the main blocks. Source: subsidiary double-pitched slate roofs are set between the main blocks In this context it really feels like there isn't any other way of putting this. What would you suggest? Because this is a direct quotation, I'd strongly suggest avoiding keeping this as-is unless you add it in quotation marks with attribution. Perhaps it could be reworded to make the context clearer. I.e., between the main blocks of what? "The double-pitched slate roofs are imbedded within the main blocks of the ...." This might not be entirely accurate but hopefully you get the idea!
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Following reading the sources, happy that this article covers the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Happy that main details are covered and article doesn't go into unnecessary detail.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	Content is presented neutrally.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	Majority of recent edits are by nominator and are constructive. If there are further edits during the review they are likely to continue that way.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	Images are tagged with copyright status.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Images are relevant and have suitable captions. Not a GA requirement, but they need alt descriptions.
	7. Overall assessment.