This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Emporole (talk | contribs) at 19:04, 2 November 2012 (Emporole moved page Talk:Wallace Collection to Talk:The Wallace Collection: The museum is called "The Wallace Collection", never "Wallace Collection".). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 19:04, 2 November 2012 by Emporole (talk | contribs) (Emporole moved page Talk:Wallace Collection to Talk:The Wallace Collection: The museum is called "The Wallace Collection", never "Wallace Collection".)(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.
{{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)
Literary allusions
The Wallace collection comes up in loads and loads of novels, particularly; I'm thinking most obviously of Iris Murdoch and Anthony Powell but I'm certain there are tons of others. Someone should make a section on this and if no one else does I will in a longish time
Jaguarjaguar (talk) 15:15, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
Arms and armour
No mention is made of the extensive collection of weapons which fill the ground floor.--KTo288 (talk) 17:25, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
Categories: