Talk:Current Biography

A fact from Current Biography appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 26 October 2005. The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that Current Biography is a standard reference work in American libraries?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2005/October.

Wikipedia

Magazines

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Magazines, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of magazines 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.MagazinesWikipedia:WikiProject MagazinesTemplate:WikiProject Magazinesmagazine articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
See WikiProject Magazines' writing guide for tips on how to improve this article.

One troublesome line/paragraph.[edit]

The article says: "Current Biography was a standard biological reference work at accredited American library schools in 1979."

A "biological reference work"? Did the writer mean to say "biographical" instead. If so, that would be redundant. If not, and there's some connection to life sciences, the statement should be explained.
The phrase "accredited American library schools" is too vague. Does it mean something like "accredited colleges offering library science degrees"? Actually, I'd hope that it was a reliable reference for any field of study.
So it "was" a reference "in 1979"? What was special about 1979. I suspect that it's supposed to say that it's been standard until 1979 or maybe since 1979, but in any event, needs rewording or clarification.

Continuing: "Current Biography Yearbook provided short obituary notices from people of all nationalities."

I think that the obituary process is explained earlier in the article.
Furthermore, what's the point of telling us that "all nationalities" are involved? Nothing so far in the piece suggests that its scope isn't international.

I believe that the article would be improved by eliminating this sentence. WHPratt (talk) 04:48, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]