Talk:Ludwig Hirschfeld Mack
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
External links modified
editHello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Ludwig Hirschfeld Mack. 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/20090919021934/http://greatershepparton.com.au/artcollection/paintings/ to http://www.greatershepparton.com.au/artcollection/paintings/
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) 11:41, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
This page is looking a lot better than last time I did some work on it about a year ago, but it still has a lot of unsourced claims. Also, the References are an odd mixture of notes and references. I also found quite a lot of external links used in the body of the text. These should be inserted as inline references, if they are specificly relevant and support what is being claimed in text, otherwise they shouldn't be there at all. Aside comments shouldn't be inserted between ref tags - they are comments, not sources of information. If something is worth saying just put it in the text - if it isn't directly relevant, then leave it out. The subject of the page was an academic so when adding content it would be good to do him the honour of citing it correctly. Felixkrater (talk) 15:52, 23 January 2018 (UTC)