Good articleHarold B. Lee Library has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
June 1, 2008Good article nomineeListed

COI tag (September 2024)

75% of content was added by an employee from the library. Since the COI disclose nothing was done here. The scarcity of non-mormon sources puts N in question. Ixocactus (talk) 21:36, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, the tag should remain until it has been effectively rewritten by independent parties. I think in terms of general notability it is notable, there is definitely enough in the secular press and academia to get us there but I agree that the current article is unbalanced in its sourcing and puts too much of an emphasis on primary/LDS walled garden sources. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:27, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

GA Reassessment

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · WatchWatch article reassessment pageMost recent review
Result pending

Article has prose issues, particularly the active templates. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 13:33, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lead changes

IP these lead changes[3] feel WP:PROMO to me. Can you see why that would be? Beyond that its unsourced which would be ok if it didn't have a lot of stuff which wasn't in the article. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:32, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Thank you for engaging on talk. My breakdown of your concerns below:
  • Reworded to "The library traces its roots to the late 19th century and has been renamed, relocated, and expanded various times to accommodate the growth of its collection." - This was to better summarize (more succinctly) what is covered in detail in the body, per WP:LEAD. I don't see any issue here.
  • Added "The library is a Congressionally designated depository for U.S. Government documents." - This is covered in the body of the article in the Collections section along with a supporting reliable citation. (See, "...and serves as a designated depository of government documents.[38]" I don't see any issue here.
  • Reworded "The library has 6 floors, with 98 miles of shelving, more than 6 million items, and a seating capacity of 4,600 people. It serves over 10,000 patrons each day." - This was on the page previously but lacked a supporting citation; plus it's not spelled out in the body. I will rectify shortly.
  • "In 2004, The Princeton Review ranked the HBLL as the No. 1 "Great College Library"." - This is a fact and was added with a supporting reliable citation to the pertinent section Awards and Recognition. Rankings are pretty standard facts included in articles across ENWP. I don't see any issue here.
Please let me know if any further concerns. Thank you. 2600:1700:1BD0:3FF0:351B:D713:4663:BCCF (talk) 19:14, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't feel like you addressed my concerns about promotional content at all. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:24, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not a mindreader. If you have concerns, you have to explain them on talk. 2600:1700:1BD0:3FF0:351B:D713:4663:BCCF (talk) 19:27, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The overall effect seems to be overly promotional, it has a salesmanlike tone not an encyclopedic one. It looks like you're highlighting the best attributes as you see them. I should also be clear that it wasn't great to begin with. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:30, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've now rectified the issues I pointed out above. I've also taken further actions to try to resolve other potential issues with tone and promotionalism. The article looks NPOV to me now. If you see more issues, please point them out here; otherwise, I move to remove the promotional tag now. 2600:1700:1BD0:3FF0:351B:D713:4663:BCCF (talk) 20:53, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There is no promotional tag on the article. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:47, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No tags for this post.