Talk:Might and Power

New Zealand Mid‑importance

	New Zealand portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject New Zealand, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of New Zealand and New Zealand-related topics 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.New ZealandWikipedia:WikiProject New ZealandTemplate:WikiProject New ZealandNew Zealand
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Horse racing Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Horse racing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Horse racing 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.Horse racingWikipedia:WikiProject Horse racingTemplate:WikiProject Horse racingHorse racing
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Australia: Sports Mid‑importance

	Australia portal Might and Power 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
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Australian sports (assessed as Mid-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.

Untitled

This is biased!--The judge and jury 07:02, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I concur. This is one of the worst cases of editorialising I've seen in a while. Perhaps someone from the Project will have the inclination to make it more encyclopedic? Secret Squïrrel, approx 09:45, The Day after the Cup, 2007 (UTC)

There is a lot of good stuff there. Just needs to be checked. Wallie (talk) 20:03, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hopefully it is a lot more encyclopedic now, although there are still a handful of things in there that, while obviously correct, are not referenced Pittsburghpenguin (talk) 11:06, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]