Template:Did you know nominations/Cork Public Museum


 * The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as |this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Zanhe (talk) 19:13, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Cork Public Museum

 * ... that the Cork Public Museum building was used to host visiting royalty in the 1900s, and as an air-raid shelter in the 1930s? (see comment thread)
 * ... that the Cork Public Museum building was used to host visiting royalty in the 1900s, and as an air-raid protection office in the 1930s?


 * ALT1:... that the Cork Public Museum building hosted dignitaries like Edward VII of the United Kingdom and Alexandra of Denmark during the 1902 Cork International Exhibition?
 * ALT2:... that the Cork Public Museum houses Cork-area archaeological finds such as mining tools from the Bronze Age and helmet horns from the Iron Age?
 * ALT3: ... that the Cork Public Museum building was designated as an air-raid shelter and the museum itself partially closed during the The Emergency (1939-1945)? (see comment thread below)
 * ALT4:... that the Cork Public Museum building was designated as an air-raid protection office and the museum itself partially closed during the The Emergency (1939-1945)?
 * Reviewed: Morton Kamien

Created by Guliolopez (talk). Self-nominated at 14:08, 25 March 2016 (UTC).


 * Review underway... Hassocks  5489 (Floreat Hova!)  20:17, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Symbol question.svg The article was created on 24th with content from a sandbox as per the edit summary. Rated at Start-class; length is fine, language is neutral and no copyvio/close paraphrasing noted.  Generally speaking, the referencing is good, but I have a couple of queries relating to specific references:
 * Ref [7] is a dead link for me.
 * Ref [3] may be borderline in relation to WP:USERGENERATED. www.dochara.com/about/ suggests that content (articles) can be submitted and may be published.  That said, there seems to be a degree of editorial control, and ref [3] itself does have the site owner's name next to it.  So I'm leaning towards interpreting this as an exception to WP:USERGENERATED as per this sentence (from here: Content from a collaboratively created website may be acceptable if the content was authored by, and is credited to, credentialed members of the site's editorial staff.  However, this is the only source that supports the use as an air-raid shelter (as per the original hook and ALT3).  Other sources cited in the article state it was an "Air Raid Protection office".  To me that sounds like a workplace for government officials.  Is it possible to confirm from another source whether it was indeed used as a shelter?
 * I am happy with all aspects ALT1 and ALT2, and will mark these as verified once the dead link issue is resolved.  Hassocks  5489 (Floreat Hova!)  21:50, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks so much for those comments. Having read a few different sources about the subject, I guess I hadn't spotted the apparent conflict, possible self-published source "synth" issue, and how a conscientious fact check might spot a possible flaw/concern. I am absolutely delighted to have the assistance in shoring-up those gaps. Much appreciated. Anyway, to the point/concern, as noted on my talkpage, parts of the museum building were used as both "air-raid shelter" and "office managing air-raid shelters". Both are true. The latter was an office set-up under the 1939 Act. The former was in the lower-reaches of the building, and allocated (under the same act) for people in the building/area. (Such shelters were mainly built by employers - like the local authority themselves - and subject to grants/etc, and there was equivalent signage in the building). All that said, apart from the self-pub source (and what might pitifully be described as "local knowledge"), I haven't sourced a cite (not one that fully meets the expected tenets of WP:VER at any rate) for the former. Hence, I've reworded/udpated the DYK nom. And the section of the article itself. I hope the reworded hooks look OK. I should've done with ALT1 as the primary in the first place :) Thanks again. Guliolopez (talk) 20:44, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Everything above has been dealt with, and I am now happy to mark all four hooks as verified. Hassocks 5489 (Floreat Hova!)  12:09, 29 March 2016 (UTC)