Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/St La Salle Hall/1

St. La Salle Hall

 * • Watch article reassessment page • GAN review not found
 * Result: delist. I appreciate the work that Moray put into it, but as consensus notes below the article is still a ways from meeting the criteria. Wizardman  Operation Big Bear 00:44, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

I have several concerns regarding this article. I thought that it didn't meet the current WP:WIAGA so I did some major editing work. After removing content which I thought was overly detailed (unmerited name dropping, extensive quoting), including in-line citations and some refactoring it ended up like this. It is now left with only one section (history). The previous version relied heavily on two book sources. The DLSU Library is only about 30 km from where I am editing now but still it's a pain in the ass to go there and verify the content. I simply don't have the time (and honestly, motivation). So I just assumed WP:good faith that the original author User:Mithril Cloud (currently inactive) faithfully and correctly interpreted the information presented in the books without bias.

This is the article before I started editing it. User:Drewcifer3000 had previously (August 2007) had this article for reassessment at Good article reassessment/Archive 28. It was kept. Original GAN is at Talk:St. La Salle Hall.

I would like to know if I over-removed/simplified some parts, if this article is still viable as a GA, and if it would pass WP:FAC in its current state (+ major prose copy-editing). I simply am not sure if a 1-section article with less than 20 in-line citations can pass FAC. Moray An Par (talk) 13:47, 13 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I will provide some feedback regarding your questions above. Overall I think you have done a decent job at fixing the article. I agree with the removal of the large quotes and some of the unreferenced material. I would think a layout section would be useful and probably even required under the broadness criteria. Adding the picture :File:LS Location.png of the layout to that section would be good. There may be some sources, even primary ones could be used for this, to reference such a section.
 * As the article stands presently I don't think it meets the GA criteria. A few prose issues that are easy to fix, but there are still some referencing problems which are harder to solve. Inline citations are needed and to keep this article it would probably pay to get hold of the books or at least find other means to source some of the statements.
 * I have left some comments below: AIR corn (talk) 07:10, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Due to the lack of space in the campus at Paco, the transfer of De La Salle College to Taft Avenue was decided. syntax.
 * The estimated cost of the construction of building in the site was ₱200,000 (US$46,400) Constucion and/or building? They seem to be saying the smae thing.
 * The reasons for it's location, although common sense, should probably be cited
 * Opposition from constructing the college at the new site came from certain American parties who had financial stakes on the properties that were supposed to be developed under the municipal planning scheme for the area This does not sound nuetral and is unreferenced. "what american parties? The other statments in the paragraph also need cites.
 * Another problem, concerning the Bronan Plan, arose regarding the site. Not sure what this is trying to say
 * The building sustained heavy ...... Too many short choppy sentences starting this paragraph.
 * Sixteen Brothers and 25 other civilians were massacred by Japanese troops inside the school chapel on February 12, 1945. Massacred seems a bit loaded, but it is what is linked. If the sources say massacred it is probably fine.
 * "Opposition from constructing ..." This was from the article before I edited it. I suspect that it came from the book(s). The Bronan Plan seems to be one of those post-war reconstruction programs during the American regime in the Philippines. I could not find it (or anything about Bronan) however in internet sources. I assume that the National Library in Manila has facsimiles/copies of the original plans (including Bronan). But yet again, it's such a hassle to go there and check it. I'll expand a layout section shortly. Thank you for the reassess. Also, if it counts, I am in favor of delisting this. Moray An Par (talk) 02:47, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
 * On the second thought, I don't think I can expand a layout section with limited sources. Moray An Par (talk) 03:21, 19 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Delist. This article shouldn't have been given GA status originally nor survived its first GAR - unless the guidelines were much more lax 4-5 years ago. I don't think this could get to FAC and getting it kept at GA will be a problem. I'm actually confused reading this article, what makes it notable? The architecture? (barely mentioned). It's link to the business school? (Notablility not inherited). It's history? (no mention of exceptionality). The lead needs to be rewritten to be clearer, if its important because of it's architecutre content has to be added that demonstrates why. There are cites missing from the selection of site section too. Article just looks hollow right now. Szzuk (talk) 13:57, 29 June 2011 (UTC)