This article is within the scope of WikiProject Architecture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Architecture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ArchitectureWikipedia:WikiProject ArchitectureTemplate:WikiProject ArchitectureArchitecture
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Libraries, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Libraries on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LibrariesWikipedia:WikiProject LibrariesTemplate:WikiProject LibrariesLibraries
This article is within the scope of WikiProject London, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of London on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LondonWikipedia:WikiProject LondonTemplate:WikiProject LondonLondon-related
This article is related to the British Library. Please copy assessments of the article from the most relevant WikiProject template to this one as needed.British LibraryWikipedia:GLAM/British LibraryTemplate:WikiProject British LibraryBritish Library-related
This article relates to the British Museum. Please copy assessments of the article from the most major WikiProject template to this one, as needed.British MuseumWikipedia:GLAM/British MuseumTemplate:WikiProject British MuseumBritish Museum-related
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Museums, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of museums on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MuseumsWikipedia:WikiProject MuseumsTemplate:WikiProject MuseumsMuseums
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Politics of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Politics of the United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomPolitics of the United Kingdom
This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
How can the page unequivocally state that the British Library is the largest library, when its size is given as 150-200 million items, and the Library of Congress is 164 million items? It should state that it may be the largest library, as it may have up to 14 million fewer items catalogued than the LoC. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.155.195.10 (talk) 03:27, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There’s a problem: Both the BL and the LOC are currently claiming to have the same number of items, though in somewhat general terms. Both are claiming to hold “over” or “more than” “170 million items.” I think the relevant text of each article needs to be changed to read that each, together with the other, is the largest library in the world. If there are no objections, I’ll make the changes in a few days. Antinoos69 (talk) 15:33, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Fine in principle, but I fear you'll find it difficult to introduce a form of words that remains stable. We've tried to introduce suitably vague but accurate wording in the past, but someone always seems to come along wanting to promote one library or the other. You will also need to consider, and perhaps edit, List of largest libraries. Part of the problem is that stock is measured in different ways, and absolute comparisons are impossible. You might like to skim through previous discussions in Talk:British Library/Archive 1. GrindtXX (talk) 17:21, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I am concerned that this article no longer meets the good article criteria. Some of my concerns are listed below:
There is a lot of uncited prose throughout the article.
Most of the article text is listing the library's collection. I think this is more promotional than encyclopdic, and at a minimum should be moved to its own list article or removed altogether.
The "Using the library's reading rooms" section also reads as promotional: this should be rewritten to be encyclopedic.
The information in the article is very disorganised: I struggled to find information about recent historical events, "Other projects" is splitting up information about the collections, and I do not understand the layout order. This should be reorganised more effectively.
I don't agree at all about these points. Words fail me as to why detail about the library's collection should be considered "more promotional than encyclopdic [sic]"! This is the core of the subject's notability; it has what is pretty much the world's best and certainly most comprehensive collection of manuscript and early printed books. The article does a typically Wikipedian disservice to the reader by not making this clear, no doubt because of the usual paranoia about "peacock" and "promotional" material. This failing would be my main issue with the article. You wouldn't make this complaint about an art gallery. The same for the next point; beyond what it contains and how to access the holdings, what else would readers be interested in? It's a library - what "recent historical events" do you think there are likely to be? As it happens they had a bad hacking of their systems (last year I think), which should be mentioned - oh, I see it has its own section, and indeed article - British Library cyberattack. No, I am, not interested in fixing it up, but I will strongly resist attempts to have the collection "moved to its own list article or removed altogether", as I think will others. Johnbod (talk) 03:50, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I entirely agree with Johnbod's points: the article is in no way "promotional". In addition, I see no justification for your complaint about "a lot of uncited prose throughout the article". There are 165 footnotes, spread pretty evenly throughout. If there are any specific statements you feel are questionable and unsupported, please tag them; but I'm not seeing it. GrindtXX (talk) 12:23, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Some responses below:
Regarding the collections: it is appropriate, and probably necessary to fulfil 3a of WP:GA?, to have prose about the collections. However, in my opinion this prose should be about the topics in the collections, with some mention of the most important works. The "Newspapers" section does this well: it mentions what is in the collection (British and Irish newspapers, but not listing every single one), how it got there, where it is, and how to get access. "Highlights of the collections" contains over 7,000 words, while the rest of the article is about 3,600. That section is no longer a highlight of the collection, but rather a large list. Since this is not a list article, it would be more appropriate to move the list of books and manuscripts to its own list article. Furthermore, articles over 9,000 words are recommended at WP:TOOBIG to have information spun out, of which this section is probably the best place to do this. Yes, I would make this same complaint about an art gallery: the article should not list every piece of art within the gallery, but rather have a few of its highlights be mentioned.
Regarding recent events: I think this article could be better organised so that historical events (like the hacking incident) are grouped together, not spread out amongst the article.
Regarding uncited prose: GrindtXX I added citation needed tags to the places where citations might be necessary.
level-4 vital article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
.jpg){kind=small}
.svg){kind=small}
