Talk:De La Salle Brothers Philippine District

Failed GA Nomination
As of 26 September 2006, per WP:WIAGA, here's my assessment to this article:

1. It is well written.
 * (a) it has compelling prose, and is readily comprehensible to non-specialist readers: → need improvement
 * Prose is not really clear to understand. I've made some copyedit to change the wording. Further improvement is needed to make this article compeling to any readers.


 * There some statements that I could not copyedit, because I don't understand what they mean. For example, "Over time, the Brothers established their congregation as being a group of full-time religious educators who have consecrated their lives for the education of the youth.".
 * (b) it follows a logical structure, introducing the topic and then grouping together its coverage of related aspects; where appropriate, it contains a succinct lead section summarising the topic, and the remaining text is organised into a system of hierarchical sections (particularly for longer articles) → fail
 * The lead section is definitely not summarizing the article, does not give context and cannot be stand alone. Reading only the lead section, I left in puzzle of what the hell is this institute? school? church? brotherhood? I haven't got any clue from the lead section. The first sentence is a definition to itself: "The De La Salle Brothers in the Philippines is part....,known as the De La Salle Brothers." (???)


 * I've made a grouping of three section into subsections and called it History section. This is to make a nice way of reading this article.
 * (c) it follows the Wikipedia Manual of Style including the list guideline → pass
 * No visible WP:MOS violation appears.
 * (d) necessary technical terms or jargon are briefly explained in the article itself, or an active link is provided. → pass
 * This article does not really suffer from technical/specialized jargons.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * (a) it provides references to any and all sources used for its material → need more
 * I've put tags where facts are given without source. Section Background and History (from 3 sections that I grouped, see 1.(b) above) are the most important one in this article to give understanding of the subject, but unfortunately it is unsourced. I've put a big tag there. Please do not consider it as discouraging, but rather to improve this article further.
 * (b) the citation of its sources using inline citations is required → weak pass
 * Inline citation is given, but style is not perfect. See WP:CITET for better citation style. More inline citations are needed to be used in the page, not just listing in the Reference section.
 * (c) sources should be selected in accordance with the guidelines for reliable sources → fail
 * One citation cannot be verified, i.e. source number 2. What is it?
 * (d) it contains no elements of original research. → passes

3. It is broad in its coverage.
 * (a) it addresses all major aspects of the topic (this requirement is slightly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required by WP:FAC, and allows shorter articles and broad overviews of large topics to be listed) → need expansion
 * I think the article is still too thin as its history is quite meaningful. What are their achievements to the community? How do local Filipinos think now to the school? Speaking about the school, how is the school now organized?
 * (b) it stays focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary details (no non-notable trivia). → pass

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * (a) viewpoints are represented fairly and without bias → weak pass
 * I'm missing about other third parties views to the school. News?
 * (b) all significant points of view are fairly presented, but not asserted, particularly where there are or have been conflicting views on the topic. → no comments

5. It is stable, i.e. it does not change significantly from day to day and is not the subject of ongoing edit wars. → pass
 * Seems okay from the history.

6. It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.
 * (a) the images are tagged and have succinct and descriptive captions → fail
 * I can't believe it. Almost all images, except one, are copyrighted and no fair use rationale given at all. And there are 13 images!
 * (b) a lack of images does not in itself prevent an article from achieving Good Article status. → not relevant

Conclusion: failed for GA. If you disagree with my reviews, then you can always ask for other reviewers' opinion in WP:GA/R, or improve the article, resolve all matters that I've explained above and renominate it back. I think, this article has good prospect for GA after I read the whole article. It just needs expansions, rewriting and don't forget about suitable images for WP. Happy editing and cheers. &mdash; Indon ( reply ) &mdash; 15:53, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Agreed. This article really ready for GA, the nominator got carried away with nominating. -- Mithril Cloud 09:34, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:DLS-Paco.gif
Image:DLS-Paco.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 05:58, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Philbrother.png
Image:Philbrother.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 16:34, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:StLS1921.jpg
The image Image:StLS1921.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check


 * That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
 * That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. --07:34, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

"Both were never seen again"
Egbert Xavier is one of these people. Who is the second? Varlaam (talk) 22:22, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 one external links on De La Salle Brothers Philippine District. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071020114446/http://www.st-johann-os.de/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=73&Itemid=104 to http://www.st-johann-os.de/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=73&Itemid=104
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060223023141/http://www.dlsaa.com:8082/brothers.html to http://www.dlsaa.com:8082/brothers.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060905112854/http://www.usls.edu.ph:80/brothers/index.php to http://www.usls.edu.ph/brothers/index.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 01:07, 9 December 2016 (UTC)