Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Johnbod (talk | contribs) at 04:11, 11 April 2008 (You must be kidding! This is a world class collection by any standards). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

London Start‑class Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject London, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of London on Misplaced Pages. 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 Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Museums Start‑class Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Museums, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of museums on Misplaced Pages. 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 Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

References

I can't seem to get the references listed in the References Section, anyone help?--81.106.79.133 11:14, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Peacocky sentence

I have removed this sentence:

"The Wallace Collection sits favourably amongst a group of private collections, primarily European, which include; The Royal Collection, as the greatest private collection in the world, Waddesdon Manor, the Bowes Museum, Herrenchiemsee, Museo Thyssen-Bornemisza, Frick Collection and the Liechtenstein Museum."

This serves no purpose but to puff the collection. Sits favourably? What does that mean. Is this a list of private collections? If so, then we should just put a link in the "see also" section to a list of private collections. Just listing these names serves no real purpose. It was claimed that the facts are not in dispute; I don't see any facts to dispute, just a list of vaguely explained names. Why pick (only) these? This list smacks of original research. --Eyrian 16:27, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

• Start-Class London-related articles
• Mid-importance London-related articles
• Start-Class Museums articles
• Mid-importance Museums articles