Talk:Eaglemont, Victoria

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)

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.

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