First, those links address my points improperly, if at all. Slippery slope once again assumes that the warrant is extreme but there is no such guarantee in the construction presented.
Second, even if the extra links on the site were correct I don't see why that would make the poster itself any less wrong.
From the description: "[...] shifts attention to extreme hypotheticals [...]" (also present in the A1 poster)
In any case, I see this poster as a cheat sheet: not something to learn from, but a quick reference for someone who has already done their homework and learned about those logical fallacies.
The problem is that I can't see how this is correct, even to the trained eye:
Argument from authority -- It is important to note with this fallacy that authorities in given fields may very well have valid arguments, and that one should not dismiss another's experience and expertise. To form an argument, however, one must defend it on its merits i.e. know why the person in authority holds the particular position that they do.
Only vaguely. You don't actually have to know what general relativity is or how it works to form an argument based on the statistical likelihood of physicists being correct. You don't really have to know "why" the person in authority holds their opinion, only that they are both an expert on the topic they are covering and that there is a general consensus among other experts on the same topic.
It is, of course, entirely possible that the opinion of a person or institution of authority is wrong; therefore the authority that such a person or institution holds does not have any intrinsic bearing upon whether their claims are true or not.
I'm not sure what this is trying to say, but there's certainly justifiable basis in believing that person's authority has an intrinsic bearing on the probability that their claim is true.
How is the quoted definition at all useful -- to either logicians or laymen?
Perhaps suggest an alternative to be put on the poster? Seems like this is a project about education and not about proving expertise in logical fallacies. I would expect that the authors would be welcoming of increased clarity and correctness in their examples.
Second, even if the extra links on the site were correct I don't see why that would make the poster itself any less wrong.