Talk:Ellis Bent

	British Empire portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject British Empire, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of British Empire 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.British EmpireWikipedia:WikiProject British EmpireTemplate:WikiProject British EmpireBritish Empire articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Australia: Law Low‑importance

	Australia portal Ellis Bent 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 law (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.

Biography

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles

A fact from Ellis Bent appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 8 April 2007. The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that Ellis Bent was the first barrister appointed as a judge in Australia?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2007/April.

Wikipedia

Initial picture[edit]

I have to wonder whether this picture is even worth being in this article. It is far too small to discriminate or distinguish any meaningful facial or bodily details. It simply looks out of place and a little foolish. Sorry if I'm being blunt, but I dont think much of it, at least in the context of this piece of writing. Cheers, -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 12:20, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]