Talk:Cork Courthouse, Washington Street
![]() | Cork Courthouse, Washington Street was a Art and architecture good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | ||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
Current status: Former good article nominee |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
Help organizing references
editHi 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
editI'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
editGA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
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
Layout Words to watch
Fiction
List incorporation
| |
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. |
| |
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). |
Source check "Teach Cúirte Chorcaí, Sráid Washington". courts.ie. "Cork Court Office - Civil and Family". courts.ie. "Cork Court Office - Crime". courts.ie. Bracken, Gregory; Bracken, Audrey (2018) Cork County Council. 2018.
"Courthouse, Washington Street, Cork City". buildingsofireland.ie.
Cronin, Maura (1994)
Cronin, Tom (2012)
Dunne & Philips (1999) Holohan, Patrick (2006)
| |
2c. it contains no original research. |
| |
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:
"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."
I have spotted where material has been directly lifted from the source:
| |
3. Broad in its coverage: | ||
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. |
| |
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). |
| |
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. |
| |
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. |
| |
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. |
| |
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. |
| |
7. Overall assessment. |