Talk:Cork Courthouse, Anglesea Street

Extra images

I took a few photos of the courthouse today, three of which I have put into the article. I also took these two, but didn't put them in. If someone wants to include them at a later date though, here they are.

Cork Courthouse Anglesea street, at an angle

Another shot of Cork Courthouse Anglesea Street, as seen from Union Quay Lane

Hi- The Article is looking very good: well done! Please bear in mind WP:IG (Wikipedia is not an image repository). Personally I think three images is enough for an article of this length. Personally, I would remove the image showing the rear of the courthouse, as seen from Union Quay Lane. But alternatively please feel free to remove the print that I uploaded. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 16:00, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Shearonink (talk · contribs) 00:11, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Will do a GA Review of this article over the next few days. Shearonink (talk) 00:11, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for the review. I've addressed your issues as outlined below.

• The lead section sentences have been merged in places, and I've replaced a few "it"s.
• The sentence you identified (rightly) as being poorly written has been changed.
• Translation added to source 1, which I think is the only Irihs language source.
• Ref #9 replaced with archived copy of the resource.
• Added wikilinks to all Irish Examiner and Irish Times articles, and developed one from an auto-cite to a proper news reference.

I think that's everything - please let me know if there are any more changes to be made, and thanks again for the review! Xx78900 (talk) 13:12, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

@Shearonink are you still interested in this review? Just thought I'd give you a ping as it's been a week, I imagine it's just slipped off your radar. Thanks. Xx78900 (talk) 09:49, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Xx78900 So sorry for the delay. Thanks for the reminder-ping & all those changes above. I'll go over the article one more time today to make sure I haven't missed anything and finish assessing. Shearonink (talk) 16:11, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

• A few more things:

• This sentence seems to be missing the article "the" before the word "complex" - The total cost of the renovations was €34.8 million, and added a new structure to complex,
• I think one of these two templates could/should be added to the article, either {{Use British English|date=January 2023}} or {{Use Hiberno-English|date=January 2023}}. Sometimes folks come along and mistakenly "correct" spellings, like "colour" to "color" and so on. As soon as these 2 "A few minor things" are taken care of/responded to, I will finish up this Review and intend promote this article to GA status. Shearonink (talk) 16:28, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Both done now. Xx78900 (talk) 09:27, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   I am working my way through the article's text, so far so good, but -

   What is meant by this sentence - "During its construction, care was taken impact the existing walls of the Model School as little as was could feasibly be done."

   The above sentence needs to be corrected. Shearonink (talk) 04:07, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

   Before moving forward, I think the lead needs some adjusting for style. There's a little too much of "It", the sentences seem a little short and a little too simple. Shearonink (talk) 17:03, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

   • Lead section - fine, but see 1A comment on style. Shearonink (talk) 17:03, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
   • Layout - fine.
   • Words to watch - fine.
   • Fiction & List parameters are not applicable. Shearonink (talk) 04:07, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

2. Is it verifiable with no original research?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   No original research found, all statements are referenced/sourced. Shearonink (talk) 02:11, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

   B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:

   I have found a couple of issues with the references.

   • Since this is the English WP, any references that resolve to Irish language content need to be marked as such, see Ref #1-https://www.courts.ie/ga/teach-c%C3%BAirte-chorca%C3%AD-sr%C3%A1id-anglesea
   • Ref #9/with the URL http://www.iar.ie/Archive.shtml?IE%20CCCA/NS/MS isn't working
   • The Irish Times has a Wikipedia article. It should be Wikilinked within the refs that cite it. Shearonink (talk) 04:07, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

   C. It contains no original research:

   All the statements are sourced. Shearonink (talk) 02:11, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

   Ran Earwig's copyvio tool - no copyvios found. Shearonink (talk) 01:49, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   Focused on the topic. Shearonink (talk) 01:49, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

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

   ^...without being mired in details. Shearonink (talk) 01:49, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

   Very straightforward and factual. Shearonink (talk) 04:07, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

5. Is it stable?

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

   No edit wars. Shearonink (talk) 01:49, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

6. 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:

   Images are all fine for this parameter. Shearonink (talk) 02:03, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

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

   Images are relevant and have good captions. Shearonink (talk) 02:03, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   Have found a few correctable issues. As soon as they are adjusted/corrected, I'll re-assess at that time. Shearonink (talk) 04:07, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

   Just one minor adjustment, that missing article (it's mentioned above in our first Comments/"A few more things" section) plus a suggestion (not a requirement) about the variant English template. As soon as those are responded to I'll finish up. Shearonink (talk) 05:15, 13 January 2023 (UTC)