This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Kbthompson (talk | contribs) at 14:15, 27 June 2008 (Clean up banner clutter using AWB). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 14:15, 27 June 2008 by Kbthompson (talk | contribs) (Clean up banner clutter using AWB)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
|
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)
Categories: