Talk:Eaglemont, Victoria

Australia: Places / Melbourne Low‑importance

	Australia portal Eaglemont, Victoria is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Australian places (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article is supported by WikiProject Melbourne (assessed as Low-importance).
	Need help improving this article? Ask a Librarian^{What's this?} at the National Library of Australia.
	The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to helpwikimedia.org.au for non-editorial assistance.

NPOV

Two concepts from Neutral point of view, an official Wikipedia policy, which apply here:

"Alternatively: assert facts, including facts about opinions — but do not assert the opinions themselves."
"Let the facts speak for themselves"

With the clause "has a 'village charm' about it, and the shopkeepers know many of the residents personally", it's not merely a case of waiting for a citation to come up which says this - it's simply unverifiable. How would one define a "village charm"? Would someone else define it differently? Someone who lives in a village of 50 up near Mildura might think otherwise. Many people might not even find villages charming. It doesn't fit with the encyclopaedic neutral tone expected of Wikipedia articles. The second section is also unverifiable, and probably not even remarkable - in several places I have lived, that would be true. With the bar - "well received" according to or by whom? What state/national awards has it won? Only abysmal bars are not well-received by their own patrons. I hope I've explained my edit appropriately. While I believe the second part of my original edit addressed a similar concern, there is some argument that it is cited in the Age article, so I left it. Orderinchaos 11:05, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Eaglemont, Victoria. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070312130132/http://www.reiv.com.au/news/details.asp?NewsID=94&ID=&pnav= to http://www.reiv.com.au/news/details.asp?NewsID=94&ID=&pnav=

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:27, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]