This article is within the scope of WikiProject Higher education, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of higher education, universities, and colleges on Wikipedia. Please visit the project page to join the discussion, and see the project's article guideline for useful advice.Higher educationWikipedia:WikiProject Higher educationTemplate:WikiProject Higher educationHigher education
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
Harold B. Lee Library is part of WikiProject Brigham Young University, an attempt to write quality articles about Brigham Young University. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.Brigham Young UniversityWikipedia:WikiProject Brigham Young UniversityTemplate:WikiProject Brigham Young UniversityBrigham Young University
This article is related to the Harold B. Lee Library holdings. Learn more about this collaborative project to improve coverage related to the BYU library's holdings, and how you can help here.Harold B. Lee LibraryWikipedia:GLAM/Harold B. Lee LibraryTemplate:WikiProject Harold B. Lee LibraryHarold B. Lee Library-related
This article has been worked on by editors affiliated with the Harold B. Lee Library. Please only use this task force when no other task force is applicable.
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]
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 "It took on its current name in 1973 in honor of Harold B. Lee, the 11thpresident of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints." - This is a fact and key context about the library's name. However, I failed to make sure this was covered sufficiently in the body of the article and I will rectify shortly.
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.
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]
You must be logged in to post a comment.