Talk:Younger Than Yesterday

Overshadowing

I'm more than a little curious about why that second paragraph about the release being "overshadowed" by the Beatles/Stones/Beach Boys "current releases" was reinserted.

Release date of Younger Than Yesterday -- February 6, 1967

Previous Beatles release, per discography -- Revolver, August 8, 1966 Subsequent Beatles release, per discography -- Sgt Pepper, June 2, 1967

Previous Beach Boys releases, per discography -- Pet Sounds, May 16, 1966, and Best Of, July 11, 1966 Subsequent Beach Boys releases, per discography -- Best of 2, July 24, 1967, and Smiley Smile, September 11, 1967

There were two contemporaneous Rolling Stones LPs, but that alone doesn't justified the comment. Without meaning to be excessively contentious, it strikes me as being speculation without any factual foundation. Monicasdude 07:01, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

No contention. I think you are right. I have removed it. —Theo (Talk) 10:18, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Who said I was talking about albums necessarily? "Good Vibrations" had just left the Top 10 and everyone was talking about Smile at the time (which would end up not coming out). The Stones had just released Bewteen The Buttons which (in the US) housed the #1 hit "Ruby Tuesday" that January. And The Beatles made their comeback with their new look that February with "Strawberry Fields Forever"/"Penny Lane" and the eye-catching promo films for both, with Pepper about to follow. In addition, that is also claimed in the liner notes for Younger Than Yesterday. Which I will now cite. That's sufficient proof. PetSounds 13:03, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

That isn't much proof. First of all, David Fricke has a reputation among other rock critics as being a hack. There's no nice way to say it and many critics have been less kind about it (Tim Riley, Jim Derogatis, Jimmy Guterman, Clinton Heylin, Bill no-relation-to-the-bassist Wyman, etc.) He writes watered down histories for reissue liner notes by the dozen and often makes mistakes, vague statements, and awkward assumptions. Second, so people didn't buy or notice "Younger Than Yesterday" because they were listening to a few other records? Or because of some records that hadn't come out yet? That's like saying "Cinderella Man" tanked at the box office because everyone was still flocking to see "Star Wars: Revenge of the Sith," and then didn't see anything else because of "Spiderman 3." The Byrds were in commercial decline, simple as that. Critics at the time DID notice. The concept of rock critics was still in its infancy, but the ones who were around and working like Greil Marcus and Paul Williams did praise this album. Neglected? Yes. Overshadowed? The word's not a good fit.

Reissue liner notes

The recent change of the text from:

A misreporting of the release date as July 1967 may explain Rolling Stone writer David Fricke's mistaken explanation of the the relatively poor sales in the booklet that accompanied the 1996 CD box set. He suggests that the album's release "was obscured by the windfall of epochal rock albums that spring and summer". In practice, however, the competing albums that he cites were released too late to materially affect sales of Younger than Yesterday.

to

In its CD liner notes, Rolling Stone writer David Fricke suggests that the album's release "was obscured by the windfall of epochal rock albums that spring and summer", citing current and about-to-be-released albums by The Beatles, Jefferson Airplane and The Doors.

appears to lose the point that Fricke may have misremembered/been misinformed about the release date (not, that he cited the error in the notes). As I understand it, Fricke's argument is that the other big releases overshadowed the Byrds' new album and diminished its anticipated sales. In practice, however, the overshadowing releases came after Younger Than Yesterday in a market that is noted for its immediacy. If we keep Fricke's claim (and I think that we should), it seems appropriate to state that it may be in error. —Theo (Talk) 08:10, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:YoungerYesterdayCover.jpg

Image:YoungerYesterdayCover.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 11:48, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Re-recording of "Why" for the Younger Than Yesterday album

I have removed the mention of Gene Clark having played on the version of "Why" featured on this album, since there is strong evidence to sugest that the version on Younger Than Yesterday was recorded long after Clark had left the band. I know that it has been claimed, by David Fricke and also possibly by Christopher Hjort, that the version of "Why" on Younger Than Yesterday was recorded during sessions for the Fifth Dimension album but I believe this to be erroneous for at least three reasons.

Firstly, both the sessionography found in Johnny Rogan's book Timeless Flight Revisited and the recording session chronology in the liner notes for the Never Before CD confirm that "Why" was re-recorded between 5 - 8 December, 1966, which would place it firmly among the Younger Than Yesterday recording sessions. The second, and to my mind, most compelling piece of evidence though, is the fact that the Younger Than Yesterday album lists Gary Usher as its sole producer. If the version of "Why" included on the album had indeed been recorded during the Fifth Dimension album sessions, then it would list Allen Stanton as the producer of this track - since it was he and not Usher who produced those recording sessions.

The third piece of evidence is a little bit more circumstantial than the first two, but is worth considering nonetheless - "Why" on Younger Than Yesterday sounds noticeably different in its musical approach to the versions of the song recorded during the Fifth Dimension sessions. McGuinn's whining, raga-style guitar, which was ubiquitous during the Fifth Dimension era, is not present on the version of "Why" found on Younger Than Yesterday, in keeping with the rest of that album. The Younger Than Yesterday versions also doesn't display any of Allen Stanton's production traits, such as wide stereo separation of vocals and instruments, it sounds much more like a Gary Usher production job to me.

Taking all three of these pieces of evidence into consideration, I personally think that it builds a pretty strong case for "Why" having been re-recorded during the Younger Than Yesterday sessions. If anyone can provide any other evidence to the contrary then I would be most interested to hear it. Kohoutek1138 10:44, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi, User: 141.157.40.46. This ongoing disagreement regarding when the version of "Why" on Younger Than Yesterday was recorded and whether Gene Clark was involved or not is verging on Edit Warring and so it is my hope that we can discuss this here and hopefully reach a consensus. I also want to say "well done" on your contributions to the Byrds related articles and to Sweetheart of the Rodeo in particular, they are worthwhile and welcome. I realise that you are a newbie and, as such, you sometimes format things incorrectly but that's fine, everyone's gotta start somewhere and I'm more than happy to tidy up after you. Kohoutek1138 15:59, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi I just saw this page for the first time and appreciate the kind words regarding "Sweetheart." I more or less reverted the article as to "Why" after changing it (again) and before seeing this page. I think the exact recording date is not something the article really calls for and its inclusion arose, from me, out of an effort to clarify publicly what should have been sorted out on this page. Since sources differ, and the possibility of including misinformation being worse than the benefits of including the exact recording date, doesn't it make the most sense to leave the date out and just put what's there now (different take, re-recording) since that much is clear? Also I hope it was okay to combine the paragraphs since it all concerns the contentious songs. Yes I'm new, was unfamiliar with the discussion page, apologize for what may have seemed like my own contentiousness, want to cooperate, am seeking confirmation of those last few Sweetheart credits, etc. Thanks!

Quick followup: If you feel the article should include the recording date/timeframe and want to put it back I won't seek to change it. I think the points above do make a good case that Hjort's 2/66 date is likely wrong.

Hi, User: 141.157.40.46. Glad you finally found the talk page! :-D I've been trying to communicate with you for a while now...even saying things in my edit summaries like "please come and say hello to me on the talk page"...and I must confess that I have been finding it somewhat frustrating that you hadn't responded. I realised though that it was probably down to your not knowing about the existance of the talk page.

Anyway, hopefully this will be the start of good communications between us two Byrdmaniax. :-) I’m more than happy to work with fellow editors here on Wikipedia and reach a consensus on contentious issues. Just for the record, and incase you don't know, this talk page is just for discussions relating to the Younger Than Yesterday article. If you want to contact me regarding The Byrds articles in general or changes you're perhaps thinking of making on Wikipedia, then feel free to post a message on my own personal talk page, which you can find here. Additionally, you can view my user page here if you want to know a little bit more about me.

Regarding the issue of when "Why" on YTY was recorded, I have to say that I think my points above, particularly those regarding Gary Usher being listed as the sole producer of YTY make for a pretty convincing case. You also have to understand where the info about "Why" on YTY being a Fifth Dimension outtake came from; and that would be David Fricke. Fricke was the first person to say in print that "Why" on YTY was a leftover from Fifth Dimension, in his liner notes for the YTY remaster. Since then it’s been repeated many times but personally, I believe it to be erroneous.

David Fricks is only a music journalist, not a Byrds historian (if that makes sense), and his liner notes for The Byrds remasters do contain a lot of inaccuracies. For example, just yesterday I was reading his comments in the Ballad of Easy Rider booklet and he states that "Tulsa County Blue" had already been a hit for June Carter. This is completely wrong...the song was not recorded by June but actually by her sister Anita Carter and she didn't have a hit with it until 1971, two years after The Byrds had recorded the song. This is unfortunately all too typical of Fricke's writing...just look further up this very page and you'll see another Wikipedia editor berating Fricke for his inaccuracies. Not everything Fricke says is false, of course, a lot of it is spot on but he does make silly errors and you have to be aware of that.

Johnny Rogan, on the other hand, was actually given access to the Columbia tape vaults and The Byrds' recording sessions documentation which he used to compile his Sessionography in Timeless Flight Revisited. Rogan is also pretty thorough in his research and seldom makes mistakes...he does make them, sure, but not as often as Fricke does. So personally, I'm more inclined to believe Rogan. I think that given the fact that he's actually seen the sessions sheets for The Byrds' Columbia recording dates, plus the fact that Allen Stanton is not credited as producer for track 11 of YTY, we should go with Rogan's dating of the song.

As for Hjort's repetition of "Why" having been recorded during the FD sessions, it's possible that he's just taking the information that Fricke provided and running with it. It would be interesting to know whether Hjort lists a source for this statement in his book or if he cites David Fricke's liner notes in the book’s bibliography. I'd really like to know how Hjort came to this conclusion.

In closing, I'm not saying that Rogan is definitely right, I'm just saying that given his track record for accuracy, the lack of a production credit for Allen Stanton on YTY and the more circumstantial fact that instrumentally, the song doesn't sound like a recording from the Fifth Dimension era, we should probably go with a December, 1966 recording date. As such, I've reinserted the December 5 - 8, 1966 date because I feel its pretty reliable. Please feel free to argue against this if you have a problem with it though. Kohoutek1138 11:37, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I think Rogan is right, and that Hjort probably did just use Fricke's (likely) misinformation for his book. I think the article is correct now. All I did in my latest revision was take out the redundancy (it said re-recording twice). Now I think it reads correctly. Finally. And yes a new era of communication! Sorry I missed those notes. I skipped over them not knowing there was a talk forum. So I'll set up an account sometime and contact you privately regarding matters more general than YTY.

Yeah, you should create a user account. For one thing it'll stop your IP address being on display to the whole world, which it is now. It'll also mean that other Wikipedia editors will be able to contact you more easily. Another reason is that I'm probably gonna nominate the Sweetheart of the Rodeo article for a Wikpedia "Good Arcticle" award at some point. If it's awarded the "Good Article" seal of approval, it'll mean that you’ll be entitled to display the award on your user page, since you’ve made significant contributions to the page. There's still more work to be done first though...I need to expand the opening section a little bit more and, in order to get a "GA" award, a page must be stable. ie. it's not subject to multiple edits on a daily basis, so when you're satisfied that the Personnel section is as good as you can make it, perhaps you'll let me know?

I'm currently going through all of The Byrds articles and have been for the last few months, fixing them up, expanding them, inserting inline references etc, etc. They were in a right sorry state before I started, I can tell you. So far I've done all of the band’s albums up to and including Ballad of Easy Rider (although I've more work to do on Turn! Turn! Turn!) and will be tackling the albums (Untitled) through to The Byrds over the next few weeks. I think that my experience as a published writer and considerable knowledge of The Byrds makes me an ideal candidate for improving these articles. But your contributions to the Personnel sections are certainly welcome.Kohoutek1138 13:07, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Younger Than Yesterday/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Khazar2 (talk • contribs) 20:08, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

I'll be glad to take this review; sorry you've had to wait so long for one. I should have comments up in the next day or two. Thanks in advance for your work here-- Khazar2 (talk) 20:08, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Hey, glad to be getting this article GA reviewed at last. Many thanks for doing this and I look forward to working with you to get through this process. --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 15:23, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Okay, my initial impression is that this looks good. The prose is strong, the sourcing thorough, and best of all, the discussion of the album is actually interesting and nuanced, drawing on a variety of different voices. Thanks again for your work to bring it to this point.

The only small issue I see with the article so far is a few points where critical evaluations are presented in Wikipedia's voice, which seem to me to raise minor WP:NPOV issues. Almost all of these could be solved with simply attributing points more clearly in-text, or by cutting a word or two. The only part where I see a minor source issue so far is with the remixing discussion at the bottom of the article. Anyway, let me know your thoughts. -- Khazar2 (talk) 14:15, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

• "Producer Gary Usher's love of studio experimentation served The Byrds' well during the making of the album." -- this judgement in the caption probably needs in-text attribution to a critic/critics for NPOV.

Well, the caption is essentially paraphrasing what Johnny Rogan is stating in the accompanying text -- specifically, "Usher's wealth of production experience and love of innovative studio experimentation would prove invaluable as the group entered their most creatively adventurous phase." This statement is, of course, supported with an inline citation, so I'm not sure I agree that the adjacent caption box needs greater attribution.

The problem is simply that the caption moves the assertion from Johnny Rogan's "voice" to Wikipedia's, and not all readers will read the full article to correlate the two. The two options here would be to either mention that this is Rogan's opinion in the caption, or to rewrite the caption to something more neutral like "Younger Than Yesterday producer Gary Usher was known for his love of studio experimentation", which avoids opining on his success. Would either of those options be ok with you? -- Khazar2 (talk) 00:48, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Done - OK, I've reworded it to attribute the opinion to Rogan.

• " while Michael Clarke continued to mature into a competent and, at times, impressive drummer." -- as critical judgement, needs in-text attribution

Done - I've always had a problem with this statement (it wasn't written by me), so I've decided to remove it altogether. It's only vaguely supported by the inline ref anyway, whereas the statement about McGuinn and Crosby honing their songwriting to compensate for Clark's departure is 100% supported.

• "The Byrds successfully expanding their musical style into several different directions" -- suggest cutting "successfully" here; the album's critical success is noted earlier and later, but it's best that that judgement not appear in Wikipedia's voice

Done - I could definitely stand to loose the word "successfully " from this sentence.

• "However, "So You Want to Be a Rock 'n' Roll Star" also suggested certain ironies due to pre-fabricated aspects of The Byrds' own origin" -- another moment that would be best attributed to a critic(s)

Done - I've attributed this to Tim Connors.

• "Crosby's songwriting skills had also developed rapidly, with "Renaissance Fair" (co-written with McGuinn) being an example of his increasingly wistful and atmospheric writing style." -- same

Done - Attributed it to David Fricke and reworded paragraph slightly to better reflect the source.

• ", with some justification," -- suggest just cutting this phrase; no need for Wikipedia to take a side in the dispute

Done - Yeah, fair point.

• "However, there are also a lot of fans who dismiss the remix as revisionist history and prefer to listen to the original mix on vinyl or on the pre-1996 CD releases." -- this seems to need citation

This sentence will be problematic, because it's just an opinion expressed on message boards (like the Steve Hoffman music forums for example). The trouble with the whole "Remix information" sub-section is that, on the one hand, it's an important part of the album's post-release history, which I feel definitely needs mentioning, but it's not an area that has been very well documented. Yet, it is a "hot topic" amongst the most obsessive of Byrds' fans and should be of some interest to even a casual fan of the album. See my comments to your next point for more detail.

• I'm not sure http://users.skynet.be/byrdsfollower/remasters1996-2000.htm is a reliable source

No, I'm not sure that it strictly meets the criteria for a reliable source either. However, the author of that article has extracted information about the extent to which Younger Than Yesterday was remixed (i.e. three songs) from the mouth of the very man responsible for the remix. Prior to that article appearing in 2009, there was absolutely no publically available information on just how much of the album had been tinkered with. I guess I'm looking for some guidance here really. I may be able to replace some of the "remasters 1996-2000" sources with more reliable ones from, Johnny Rogan's book for instance, but info regarding the fact that only three songs were remixed will be impossible to find anywhere else.

Hmmm... I agree that it's a tough cut to make, but I think it just doesn't meet RS standards; we really shouldn't rely on his reporting without editorial oversight or acknowledged expertise in the field. It seems like you could keep the Irwin interview from ICE, though, which would allow you to still have a bit of information in this section. It sounds like the material on fan response will need to be cut, too, unless you can find an RS for it; I hear what you're saying in wanting to include this, but if no reliable secondary sources are discussing it yet, it's probably premature to put it in the article. -- Khazar2 (talk) 00:58, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Done - OK, I've replaced all instances of that Byrds Flyght article as a reference and stripped out any specific info pertaining to exactly which tracks on YTY were remixed. I do agree that this stuff needed to be deleted in order to pass a GA review, but it's also a classic example of Wikipedia's rules and guidelines hindering its ability to present a complete picture of a subject, due to some information only being available on self-published sources. I know that Wikipedia is not concerned with truth, so much as it is concerned with verifiability -- and I certainly support that, because the alternative is basically unworkable -- but it's a shame that we'll loose this info from a high profile, easily accessible site like Wikipedia. As a self-confessed muso anorak and Byrds fan, how much of the album was remixed on its 1996 re-release is exactly the kind of information I come to Wikipedia looking for. Oh well...

One possibility would be to add this website as an external link, which is explicitly allowed at WP:EL even for non-reliable sources. It's not a perfect solution, but it would still get some readers there. I actually might do that myself in a moment. -- Khazar2 (talk) 14:41, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, good call. That's a great idea for an alternative. Thanks!

• "Many fans enjoy the partially remixed album because it is very close to the original mix in most cases and offers noticeably better sound quality" -- where does this information appear in the given source? I skimmed it over and didn't immediately see it, but the source is long and I easily could have missed it. -- Khazar2 (talk) 14:15, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Actually, the article only says, "the four albums that were remixed for the Columbia/Legacy remasters series do still sound very similar to the original albums in most cases" and "it's worth remembering that remixed or not, The Byrds’ Columbia/Legacy remasters do sound great." The "Remix information" section was written by an unknown editor before I ever worked on the article. I just edited it for accuracy and tried to add sources for Bob Irwin's comments and some of the other statements made. As I say, I'd be interested in your thoughts on how to improve this section without loosing it entirely...because that would leave the article noticeably incomplete in my view.

NB: One thing that I wanted to bring to your attention, in the interests of full disclosure, is the use of the Byrdwatcher website as a reliable source in this article. The site was submitted to the Reliable Sources noticeboard for review in November 2009 and consensus was that it was a reliable source (see here). Although it is technically a fansite, the likes of David Crosby have given exclusive interviews to Tim Connors, the site author/owner, and a number of books and magazines have said that the site is good, including Record Collector magazine and The Rough Guide to Rock (with the latter describing it as "the very best Byrds website"). Even the official Roger McGuinn/Byrds web page endorses it by listing it on their links page. In addition, it’s worth noting that the information on the Byrdwatcher page is well sourced with citations for quotations and such. Indeed, outside of an official band website, it's hard to imagine a more reliable web source for information on the Byrds. --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 15:23, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

If it made it through RS/N, I don't have any problem with it. I appreciate your linking me to that to save me time. And thanks generally for your fast and conscientious responses to the above! Glad to be working with you, -- Khazar2 (talk) 00:58, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Checklist

Looks like all of the above is resolved, so I'll move on to the final checklist. -- Khazar2 (talk) 17:47, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	Spotchecks show no sign of copyright issues.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).
	2c. it contains no original research.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.	Pass as GA

Thanks for your work in passing this article as a GA. It's been a pleasure workig with you. --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 18:25, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

You too! -- Khazar2 (talk) 18:45, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Younger Than Yesterday/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Comment(s)

Press [show] to view →

Start class: Y A reasonably complete infobox Y A lead section giving an overview of the album Y A track listing Y Reference to at least primary personnel by name (must specify performers on the current album; a band navbox is insufficient) Y Categorisation at least by artist and year C class: Y All the start class criteria Y A reasonably complete infobox, including cover art Y At least one section of prose (in addition to the lead section) Y A track listing containing track lengths and authors for all songs Y A "personnel" section listing performers, including guest musicians. B class: Y All the C class criteria Y A completed infobox, including cover art and most technical details N A full list of personnel, including technical personnel and guest musicians N No obvious issues with sourcing, including the use of blatantly improper sources. Y No significant issues exist to hamper readability, although it may not rigorously follow WP:MOS The album lacks citation in some of the paragraphs in the overview and lacks a list of technical personnel. Otherwise it's a good C article that's pretty close to a B. Andrzejbanas (talk) 04:40, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Last edited at 04:40, 6 August 2008 (UTC). Substituted at 11:10, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Younger Than Yesterday. 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/20090428180437/http://ebni.com/byrds/lpyty.html to http://ebni.com/byrds/lpyty.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130730153904/http://ebni.com/byrds/newsbwidc5.html to http://ebni.com/byrds/newsbwidc5.html

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) 03:13, 30 December 2017 (UTC)