Talk:Waller Hall/Archive 1

Architectural style? and images

I can't find a reference to what style this is. Judging by my semi-trained eye, the Greek cross shape and the year it was built, I'd say Greek Revival. Can someone find out for sure? P.S. The Salem Library historic photo archive is down right now, but it's got some images of the 2nd fire that I'll link to eventually. Here's a link to an image of the postal card: [1] I think USPS images are free-use, but this one has a url superimposed on it, so it would be nice to get a clean scan if someone has one lying around. Katr67 20:12, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My guess was Greek Revival too, but I couldn't find a source. I was hoping to expand the article with that information and some info on the style. Also when the weather is better I'll get a better picture. As to USPS, I think only the postage stamps pre-1978 are fair use. But since the USPS isn't completely a US government entity anymore, I think they get to keep their copyrights. I tried a quick search on the topic but couldn't find something either way (I'll try again another day). Aboutmovies 00:30, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey check this image between the fires. The poor building got a Second Empire roof and a Richardson Romanesque tower. I'm glad it burned again. Nothing against those two styles but I'm anti-bad remodeling. Anyway, we should work the remodel into the article at some point. Katr67 05:33, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You can hardly tell its the same building. Looks French to me, like something from Versailles. If we can find enough on the fires/rebuilds and the architectural style it might end up making it to a B class article. Aboutmovies 07:12, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Greek Revival revival

Look AM! Italianate/Greek Revival. And they linked to this article! Katr67 (talk) 13:27, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cool. Thanks. Aboutmovies (talk) 13:36, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To GA

~~Check Oregonian and Statesman Journal archives for more info.~~

~~Expand architecture and fires sections.~~
~~Copy edit.~~

Aboutmovies 20:52, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do you want me to see if WPNRHP would be interested in helping this get to GA status? Katr67 21:48, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That would be great! Aboutmovies 22:05, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I asked about it on their talk page, but there is also a formal collaboration process, so we may have to make a request through that. Have you tried finding the original NRHP nomination or any other sort of historic building inventory? Someone must have mentioned what style the building is--yes, its still bugging me. Katr67 22:40, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think we've done anything formally at WP:NRHP. The collaboration process there is a means of focusing efforts on one topic, but otherwise the project is relatively loosely organized.

Anyway, I took a look at the article. I filled in a couple additional infobox fields from the NRHP database, though the only listing for architecture was "Renaissance, Other". My comments:

The "Fires" section says that it was the first brick building on campus. I thought the fact was mentioned earlier in the article, but I guess it wasn't mentioned. To put some historical context around things, were there additional buildings built between 1844 and the construction of Waller Hall? What happened to the main building that was built in 1844?
Also, the "Fires" section says that it was rebuilt with a mansard roof, but the current picture doesn't show a mansard roof. Was this rebuilt after the second fire, or in the 1987 renovation?
The facts "Waller Hall sits in the north central part of campus directly opposite of the Oregon State Capitol. Waller Hall is the oldest university building west of the Mississippi River still in use in the United States." would probably make more sense in the lead of the article, rather than at the bottom in the "Currently" section.

--Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 23:29, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a bunch Elkman! Now what the heck does "Renaissance, Other" mean? Katr67 23:40, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thank you. I'll see about filling in the "blanks" and making things clearer. Aboutmovies 00:32, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are two different architecture style codes in the National Register database. One is "Renaissance" and the other is "Other". I'm not sure how they came up with the "Other" code, but it might refer to the modifications done after it was built (like the mansard roof). The infobox would probably make sense without saying "Other" anywhere. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 13:07, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GA on hold

I have reviewed this article according to the GA criteria and have put the article on hold until the following issues are addressed:

Remove the space between the inline citation and the NRHP Reference number in the infobox.
"Next on December 2, 1862 to trustees authorized subscriptions to be solicited and paid to Waller with a goal of $20,000". Remove "to" after 1862, and possibly "next" as well.
"All of the bricks used in the construction were fired on campus using clay dug up to build the foundation." Elaborate on "clay dug up"; where was it from? If you can't elaborate further, rewrite to "dug up clay".
"During this fire the top two floors of the building were destroyed including the roof." Instead of "During this fire", use "As a result of the fire"
"Additionally, a square tower was also built on top in lieu of the original cupola.[11] This tower also had a school bell." Combine these two sentences.
"In 1912 Willamette renamed the building in honor of Waller." State his full name again.
"The Mansard roof and square tower were destroyed in this fire." "This fire" was already used in the prior sentence, reword to "destroyed by the fire".
"However, the university". Remove "However" and rewrite to "The university rebuilt the hall the following year, and used the original plans that included the round cupola but omitted the Mansard style roof and the square tower topping the structure.
You should probably increase the size of the Image:BrickDentils.JPG some, it's currently way too small.
Change "the 25,000 square foot" to "the 25,000-square-foot". Same for "100 year-old".

These should all be relatively easy to fix. I'll leave the article on hold for seven days or until the issues have been addressed. When you are finished or if you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. --Nehrams2020 02:07, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GA passed

I have passed this article according to the GA criteria. Good job on addressing the above issues so quickly. Continue to improve the article, making sure all new information is properly sourced. If you have the time, please consider reviewing an article or two at GAC to help with the large backlog. Keep up the good work, and I hope you continue to improve the quality of articles on Wikipedia! --Nehrams2020 04:32, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GA Reassessment

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Waller Hall/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

GA Sweeps: Kept

As part of the WikiProject Good Articles, we're doing Sweeps to go over all of the current GAs and see if they still meet the GA criteria. I went through the article and made various changes, please look them over. I believe the article currently meets the criteria and should remain listed as a Good Article. Altogether the article is well-written and is still in great shape after I initially passed it in 2007. Continue to improve the article making sure all new information is properly sourced and neutral. It would be a good idea to update the access dates for all of the online sources. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. I have updated the article history to reflect this review. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 00:36, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.