Talk:St. La Salle Hall

message: The Japanese forces took possesion of the building and transformed it into a headquarters where the soldiers slept in the classrooms without paying rent. Is it just me, or does this seem somehow obvious? Manila was occupied by the Japanese, they occupied the building. Who were they going to pay rent to, and why would one think they would do such a thing? --Bfraga 02:17, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: At that time, the Brothers were still using the building for classes when they took over, perhaps that's why they thought that the Japanese should pay. When the Americans took over, they paid the Brothers for their occupation of the building according to the book i've read.  --Mithril Cloud 02:41, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Comment 

message: Hi. The physical location of the building should be featured more prominently, either in the opening sentence of the article or immediately afterwards. --67.190.121.213 03:19, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No problem. :) --Mithril Cloud 08:41, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Make location more prominent 

message: This article will be put on hold (for 7 days) until these minor adjustments can be made :
:1. Well written?: Pass
:2. Factually accurate?: Pass
:3. Broad in coverage?: Pass
:4. Neutral point of view?: Pass  (needs more information)
:5. Article stability? Pass
:6. Images?: Pass
Can there be different point of view for the opposition, coming from more sources. Can there also be a section for response/criticism/accpetation of the building to let people know how the building met the needs or was seen as part of the college. This also will give more references which the article lacks at that moment by having only one source/one point of view.
Lincher 13:39, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Resources for the subject is quite scarce, but we will try to find more sources to add. --Mithril Cloud 14:09, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Thank you very much! --Mithril Cloud 12:54, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: GA on hold

message: Nice work on rewriting some parts, adding some quotes and for including my comment in re-writing the article. Cheers, Lincher 11:26, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you very much! --Mithril Cloud 12:54, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: GA passed

message: After reviewing the article, I've found it to have a few problems which might require it's GA status to be review.  Namely, the almost complete lack of in-line citations, a complete lack of external links section, as well as a few typos (three-storey) is in the article a couple times.  The article is also lacking in scope past 1927 or so.  What is the building being used for more recently?  This is mentioned briefly in the introduction, but nowhere else.  Hopefully someone can find some time soon to address these issues, otherwise I'll nominate the article for Good Article review. Drewcifer3000 07:20, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  GA a year later 

message: Since noone seems to be coming to the rescue of the article, I've nominated this article for Good Article review, which could result in a delisting of the article from GA status.  Anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Drewcifer 04:35, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The result of the review was to keep the article listed as a GA.  Archive of the discussion can be found here. Drewcifer 05:10, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:GA/R|Good Article review]] 

message: In order to meet GA standards, I'm going to include more in-line citations in the article in order to back up the two book sources. I cannot, as of the moment, verify the information from the book myself given the distance of the DLSU library from where I am now. I just have to assume good faith for now that what Mithril wrote was a faithful interpretation of the books.
The opposition section needs to be reworded IMO. Copy-editing for prose has never been my expertise though. What I can all do for now is reduce/remove the extensive quotations, and integrate them in the main section. Some sections have been moved in order to conform with other architecture featured articles. There appears to be no MOS or guidelines for WP:WikiProject Architecture articles. So using the current architecture FAs as standards will have to do for now. It seems that the common sections of architecture articles are lead, history, construction, description (or layout) and grounds.
I've removed two images of the building. They are not really descriptive of the building. I'm going to search for free replacements from Flickr that capture the building's facade. Fortunately, this structure is more than 25 years old so we are not going to have any problems regarding freedom of panorama.
I plan on removing the Gaerlan conservatory. It's another building. This article should only tackle info on the La Salle Hall. Info on the conservatory should be limited to a few sentences. I also plan on submitting this article for peer review when I get done. I invite everyone to help me in this task. Moray An Par (talk) 07:11, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I can't find any photos of the building at Flickr. :( So I just left messages regarding this at the talk pages of Wikipedians from DLSU. Moray An Par (talk) 08:21, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Overhaul