Talk:Julia Alvarez/Archive 1

Request additions to article
Hello, I would like to add a link in the article to this recent interview with Julia Alvarez. http://litminds.org/blog/2007/08/julia_alvarez_talks_about_stor.html Thanks - Praveen Madan


 * How would you want to do this? If the interview contains any relevant information to the article, you may cite something from the interview and use that link as a source, in which case please post it here. However, we're not putting random links to interviews in articles when they're not relevant.  Mel sa  ran  19:03, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Plan
Our plan (SPAN 322A) for this semester is:


 * 1) this article has a couple of resources, but we plan on expanding it as we prepare our bibliography for September 26th
 * 2) Look at jbmurray's models of featured/good articles and write down what subtopics they include that we could also use in our article
 * 3) I already have some books, but now need to read them to find relevant information.
 * 4) We'll then work on expanding subtopics, and hopefully assign a couple to each of our group members to work on
 * 5) We plan on editing at least twice a week
 * 6) add many pictures of alvarez througout her life
 * 7) include interviews with the author
 * 8) talk about some of the novels she has written and her influence
 * 9) hopefully reach good article/featured article status by the end of the semester

--Julie17 (talk) 23:51, 19 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Looks like a good plan. You can of course add to it over time.  And cross things off when you've done them, including adding a big green checkmark ✅ ✅.  --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 18:19, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Ideas for Subheadings--Julie17 (talk) 21:45, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Career
 * 2) Books authored
 * 3) Critiques
 * 4) Influences in the media
 * 5) Themes
 * 6) Involvements outside of literature

Photo
Jon, I was told we would be able to come through you for adding pictures onto out website. I like the first picture here: http://www.juliaalvarez.com/gallery/. Would that be possible? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Julie17 (talk • contribs) 00:06, 13 October 2008 (UTC)


 * On that page, right by the photo, is an email link by which you can request reprint permission. You will have to explain that the image is requested for Wikipedia, which means that it should be released into the public domain, or licensed in such a way that it conforms to Wikipedia's license. For how to request use of an image, see here and here. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 07:56, 19 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Alternatively, I see that there are a number of photos of Alvarez on flickr. You can equally, therefore, write to the people who have uploaded those images there, and ask if they would change the licenses on those photos so that they can be used on Wikipedia. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 08:04, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Any progress on this? It's not essential, but it would be nice. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 04:01, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes. Well, I got a Flickr account and am trying to get a photo from there, but so far, no one has responded. Any other ideas on how to make this work? Ehager (talk) 18:30, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I just emailed a request to JuliaAlvarez.com for a photo, so hopefully this will be a good lead. Ehager (talk) 18:35, 27 October 2008 (UTC)


 * OK, marvellous. Let's hope that one of these works out.  --jbmurray (talk •

contribs) 18:42, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Good news! The people from the Julia Alvarez website wrote back to me and said that we could use a picture. I sent the picture to Jon, so hopefully we will be able to get it up and running. Ehager (talk) 19:07, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I was just going to ask if someone had asked her for a photo. Has anyone had the chance to upload the image that you got the permission for? What specifically did the people say you could do with the picture? If you got permission to license the image under and appropriate free license such as creative commons, it's better to upload the image directly to http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Upload that way every language project can use the image. The licensing stuff can be a little tricky, so feel free to ask if you need help. I'm no expert, but I know a little and I can get more help if needed. - Taxman Talk 15:43, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Next steps
We definitely need to restructure the page...there is too much information in the introduction that should be categorized into various headings. Also we need to get our references up on the front page... I'm working to figure it out right now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sauceyboy (talk • contribs) 09:03, 6 October 2008 (UTC) Alright, I made a few contributions today but I undertook the restructuring of the page that I mentioned earlier so I can't be called a hypocrite. The early life I think was quite important still needs to be expanded though. Definitely have to get those scholarly articles in there, although I think the web references I've made are pretty legit.-sauceyboy


 * This is definitely progress, but this article really needs to be expanded with the use of reliable sources that don't come exclusively from the web. Indeed, web sources should be the last resort.  See above for your bibliography!  Use it!  (Again, annotating the bibliography will help you to figure out how to use it.)  So you're moving forward, but have yet to take the leap towards using your new-found sources.  --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 05:09, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm working on getting those books back from whoever recalled them from the library --Julie17 (talk) 01:47, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Please note, again: web sources are not on the whole reliable sources. Particularly, Alvarez's own website is not a reliable source, because it is "self-published." You can add this information, but before putting it in for a Good Article Nomination, you'll have to find better sources for this information. Again, this is why I asked you to put together a bibliography of reliable sources... for which see above. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 00:46, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Hmm...
Stumbled upon this article as I was researching various authors for a homework assignment. I can see that this article really needs a lot of work. I tried hard to clean it up a bit: correcting typos, fixing the references, adding Alvarez's current age. But it still needs a ton of fixing.

Also, how could it be that Finding Miracles was published in 2011? I noticed that, and I was pretty sure it was meant to be 2001... but I wasn't sure what year exactly it was published. A search on Google and Amazon turns up 2004. Well, that's what I changed it to.  Lady   Galaxy  00:02, 16 October 2008 (UTC)


 * You won't find typos on my edits--Sauceyboy (talk) 01:10, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Coonrod reference
✅

Does anybody know where this "Conrod" ref came from? -- Sauceyboy (talk • contribs) 07:27, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Good question... This was the edit that added them. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 07:48, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

The full details of this reference, and the pages from which citations are taken, are required. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 07:47, 19 October 2008 (UTC)


 * It's been almost a month that this query has been here. Finally, I've fixed the problem myself.  --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 21:33, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Hey those are all me but I still am not sure exactly how to do references correctly. I have all of the information from an academic journal I found from the UBC library. Can someone show me tomorrow in class how to to do this?Ehager (talk) 05:17, 27 October 2008 (UTC)


 * What's important is simply the information that you would give in any academic context (such as a term paper): author's full name; title of the article; journal title; volume and issue numbers; date; pages. Also each citation needs a page number.  Add them any which way you want.  I can format it later.  But this is not Wikipedia-specific: again, in term papers etc. this information is also required.  --jbmurray (talk • contribs)

So does that mean I should add all of this information after every citation I use, or simply reference it with some information, (like author, date, and page number), to the full information which already exists in the bibliography?Ehager (talk) 17:35, 27 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Exactly. Just like a regular paper: the full information should be in the "References" section.  And with each individual citations, you should give the author, year, and page number.  Again, don't worry about the precise formatting: I can do that, but you need to provide the information.   --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 18:17, 27 October 2008 (UTC)


 * So, for instance, for this new reference (McCracken 1999), you also need to provide the full information in the "References" section. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 18:22, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

watch out for plagiarism
Much of the section on Cafe Alta Gracia is taken directly, without quotation marks, from the Alta Gracia website. Compare for instance:
 * (website:) Finca Alta Gracia is a 60-acre farm in the Dominican Republic on the slopes of Pico Duarte, the highest (3087 meters) mountain in the Caribbean. Volcanic soil, cool nights, warm sun filtered by shade trees and gentle rains all combine to produce the best of Arabica coffee.
 * (article:) Fina Alta is a 60-acre farm in the Dominican Republic on the slopes of Pico Duarte, the highest mountain in the Caribbean. A combination of Volcanic soil, cool nights, and warm sun filtered by shade trees and gentle rains help to produce Arabica coffee in this region.

Apart from the typos introduced (!), these texts are practically identical. Please fix this, and doublecheck all sources, to ensure that you are not falling into plagiarism, even unwittingly. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 20:20, 27 October 2008 (UTC)


 * In fact, for now at least, I've just removed this section. In any case, the coffee production is mentioned under "personal life," and we wouldn't want to put undue weight on this enterprise.  We could expand a little further, but only if the source is respected and not simply copied.  --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 20:27, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I think a brief mention would suffice, after all she's an author first and a philanthropist second. Good work on getting the references up everyone!--Sauceyboy (talk) 20:31, 27 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Exactly. And yes, this article is now definitely moving in the right direction.  Congratulations!  --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 20:50, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm thinking we should merge the two sections about her contributions to latina/female writers, unless you two are planning on expanding the one on contributions to female literature.--Sauceyboy (talk) 02:49, 28 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, I was going to suggest that myself. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 04:21, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Hey, Okay. I see what both of you are saying. I think the headings make a bit more sense now, and yes, I will watch out for that. Based on her website and the information she presents about herself, it seems that this farm project is something important to her, but I'll re-do it, making it shorter and changing the wording. Thanks for the suggestions. I think the article is getting a lot better and we should continue how we are going using more sources as we have many. Ehager (talk) 03:59, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

General comments from Awadewit
This is a good start! Here are some comments on how to improve the article:


 * The biography section is fragmented and difficult for the reader to follow. I would suggest writing it in chronological order. For example, after the section entitled "Early life" (which oddly covers everything up to her getting a tenure-track job), we return to her high school education, and then the beginning of her literary career, and then her family life. Try to tell the story of her life in a chronological narrative.


 * The "Teaching career" section sounds like a resume! Please rewrite it in a more encyclopedic tone when you are integrating the information into the narrative of her life.


 * The information in the "Literary career" section is rather haphazard and needs to be reorganized. For example, some of the material discusses individual books - perhaps that should go under the discussion of her works somewhere? Other material, such as that about the agent, should be integrated into the narrative of Alvarez's life. I would suggest placing the general comments about her writing somewhere else entirely, but I don't see a place for that yet.


 * The information about Alvarez's "Personal life" should be integrated into the narrative of her life.


 * The article approaches Alvarez's works in two different ways: through a "Themes and style" section and through a "Major Works" section. You need to choose one of these, otherwise the article will simply end up repeating itself. Authors who have written few works tend to lend themselves to lists of works, with good descriptions of each (e.g. Mary Wollstonecraft, but those who have written a lot do not (e.g. Emily Dickinson, Balzac, Stephen Crane). You might think about establishing sections on each different genre she wrote in or just writing on general themes or styles (see the different paths taken in the linked articles). However, discussing each work will become tedious for the reader, I think.


 * If you choose to use a "Themes and style" section, start with general claims about her work and then move to the specific. Right now, the section is structured in the reverse - the second paragraph is broader and makes more sense as an introduction.


 * I am unsure if "Influence" needs to be its own section - much in that section seems like it belongs in the "Themes" section. Perhaps it would be better as a subsection? Or perhaps you could create a "Latina literature" section and discuss that topic, using some of the material from this section as well as additional research?


 * I noticed that you have only five references - can Jbmurray help you find more? It will be difficult to write this article with only five and I have a feeling that there are many more available.
 * On this point... guys, see the bibliography you compiled over a month ago! --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 23:28, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask me. Awadewit (talk) 16:46, 1 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Many, many thanks for this Awadewit! --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 23:28, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks a bundle —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sauceyboy (talk • contribs) 21:18, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, this is all great advice. We should talk in class about how to better organize it, and we need to start utilizing all of our many sources! The books seem to be better than the academic journals I've been looking at. Ehager (talk) 01:12, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Hey, so I'm taking the advice to make the biography page more comprehensive in a chronological order, and im gonna merge all the categories into early life, middle life and late life (and include education and such) hope that makes it better —Preceding unsigned comment added by Julie17 (talk • contribs) 23:14, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I went ahead and changed it to early life, education and teaching career, literary career, and current life. Sauceyboy (talk) 10:03, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
 * That's an improvement ;) Just one minor question - the section refers to both Middlebury and Middleberry College. Are they two different places? EyeSerene talk 10:20, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the input, I think we've dealt with most of these issues...what more could we do to improve it? --128.189.243.95 (talk) 22:04, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Influence on latino/women writing
Why was this heading removed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Julie17 (talk • contribs) 21:52, 1 November 2008 (UTC)


 * It wasn't removed. You'll see from this edit that it was merely renamed to the broader "Influence."  --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 23:34, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

More References!
I read over the first few sections of the article, and I feel that there needs to be more references. I talked to a friend of mine who did this project in another class and she basically said that for the article to be "Good" or "featured" we really need to write it in a clear essay form with clear organization much like we would write a research paper for school. Also, she stressed the fact that you need to reference everything, ie any statement you make needs to be backed up with evidence in the form of sources cited to prove that it did not come from thin air. Ehager (talk) 01:16, 3 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Indeed. I have mentioned this before, no? ;) --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 12:16, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Hello NRG
Hi all on WP:NRG! I'm one of those FA-Team editors that jbmurray mentioned above, and I've 'adopted' your article - which means I'll be keeping an eye on it with you and offering assistance as you go through the various stages of article writing and assessment. You've already produced some truly excellent work, and I can see that Awadewit has already waved her magic wand and left a list of suggestions, so I don't intend to add to your workload :P However, I'm available for (almost) anything (I don't do gardening), and am more than happy to answer any questions, chip in with formatting and copyediting, advise on article assessment etc. My talk page is linked in my signature, or you can post stuff here; I'll see it either way. Best regards, EyeSerene talk 13:20, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! That's very kind. Ehager (talk) 17:15, 3 November 2008 (UTC)


 * No probs ;) Wikipedia can be a pretty overwhelming place sometimes (I've been here for years, but every so often I'll stumble across an area I knew nothing about), and on top of getting used to the way everything works by being thrown into the deep end by your esteemed tutor, you've got an article to research and write. Obviously only you can supply sourced content, but I'm happy to help with anything else (and hopefully act as a filter for all the Wiki-related stuff that's so daunting when you first look at it... like the Manual of Style or WP:GA and WP:FA).
 * I think you've already identified the most important requirement for your article, which is to get more sources and citations in place. If I can help by going through the article and tagging it where I think something needs citing, I'm happy to do that (but be warned, it might look a bit messy, which is why I always ask for permission first - it's not called "fact-bombing" for nothing!). EyeSerene talk 19:04, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Go Ahead! Any help is always appreciated :)--Julie17 (talk) 05:32, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

with regard to the summary of her life
This section is extremely long, we need to make it more concise. The section on her middle life, where we describe her education is very detailed but ultimately we're going to have to cut it down...I'm going to make some editing changes feel free to add them again should you feel I'm being too conservative Sauceyboy (talk) 08:04, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I spent 3 or so hours tonight restructuring everything and making it more concise so that it's more pleasing and interesting to the reader. Almost everything is cited now with the exceptions of the "major works" section, where there are several page numbers that are missing, and the grants and honours section, which I am tempted to delete right now because it doesn't look like we have a reputable source to have a whole section for that. Sauceyboy (talk) 09:57, 4 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Much improved, nice work ;) I'd hold off on removing the Awards etc section just yet, as you may discover sources and it would be a pain in the proverbial to have to rewrite. The information in that section must have come from somewhere... EyeSerene talk 10:28, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Hey, so I read the article over, and it is sounding a lot better. It is more concise, it easy to read, and interesting. The references seem to be more plentiful as well, which is a good thing. I think adding more sources and any additional information would be the next step. Do you guys think it would be necessary to discuss a few more of her works in specific in the Major Works section? Ehager (talk) 02:49, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Layout tweaks
I changed my mind about the tagging (for now!), as I think we could still perhaps tweak the layout so the article is organised more logically - which might make more sense to do first. I've made a minor experimental change to the Biography section (please alter as you see fit!), and I think per Awadewit the 'Writing' section needs a similar layout tweak. I was wondering about something like:
 * Literary work (main heading)
 * Influences (subheading, but is this "influences on Alvarez" or "other writers influenced by Alvarez"?, which might affect where this belongs)
 * Themes and style (subheading, incorporating the contents of "Major works" which can be discussed within this section - trying to avoid repetition)

Your thoughts? EyeSerene talk 10:24, 5 November 2008 (UTC)


 * As mentioned below the Major works section needs to be considered in that too, it's part of her literary work. And I forgot about your point above. I think you should consider both types of influences and if you have one section on it make it clear upfront which one it is focusing on (or both) and justify which one is more important if you choose to focus on one of them in a section. You can also title the section impact, legacy or some such if her impact on others justifies such a thing. - Taxman Talk 13:41, 7 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, I agree, and thanks very much for the advice. I'd prefer to see what our WP:NRG editors think though before making such major changes. Anyone? EyeSerene talk 19:29, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Comments
I've rated the article B class because it currently clearly meets those standards. You've gotten some good advice above and I see much of it has improved. Here's a few more ideas. A specific one is house style is not to cite things in the lead section because the lead section should be just a summary of what is in the rest of the article. There should be no new or novel facts in the lead section. Cite the facts instead in their appropriate sections later. Another point is that the Literary work and Major works sections are a bit redundant and I think they can be merged. Perhaps in a single section talk about what she does overall and then spend more time on the major works, by making major works a subsection of the literary work section. Beyond that the best way to improve the article is to keep working to do more research and add material from your sources. As you work through your sources see what they emphasize and that should help you prioritize what material your article covers. A perfect Wikipedia article gives more space to the most important material about a topic, less to less important material, eventually cutting off at the right level and leaving the rest to other articles. That's the idea behind summary style. So you're on the right track, keep up the good work. One more bit. If her teaching at Cal State wasn't significant or ongoing, it's probably not NPOV to mention it in the lead section. If it is, you should state which campus. I also linked some articles, you may want to change the one, especially transculturation since I don't know if that's the accepted academic term out of the three. - Taxman Talk 13:38, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

There are curious notes that say [25] [40] etc in the major works section, so let me know what those refer to... Also the influences section requires quite a few page numbers also.--Sauceyboy (talk) 20:43, 9 November 2008 (UTC)


 * It looks to me like those sections were copy/pasted from their Wikipedia articles (along with the references, hence the [numbers]!) Nothing wrong with that, but obviously they need to be amended. Just for future reference, if anyone wants to copy/paste content from another article, it's best to use the 'edit' view as this will pick up all the formatting etc. Also, the references from the original article may need to be added to this article too, to ensure citations make sense. Hope this helps ;) EyeSerene talk 23:43, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Hello, I copied and pasted things within this article to adjust the order so it made more sense. I only did it within this article though, not from other articles. Ehager (talk) 01:39, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

There is a reference entitled "McCracken" which is missing a title.--Sauceyboy (talk) 02:13, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

If we have a section entitled Themes and Subject matter then there is no need for a general description of her style in the Literary Career section, so I think it's best if we get rid of the subheading "Major Works" and just combine it under Literary Career. --Sauceyboy (talk) 02:49, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I think it looks much better now! --Sauceyboy (talk) 03:28, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

More suggestions
It does indeed look much better, nice work today. Here are a few more suggestions since it was asked.
 * Keep working on adding more references. There seem to be more sources listed in your bibliography above that haven't made it to the article. Look for a range of sources. Add important material from them, whatever seems to be justified as significant, though since the article is long enough, only add something if it is needed. Otherwise just look for support for the material you have or to see if anything needs to be adjusted based on the new source. It's always a balancing game from as many sources as you can get.
 * Neutral point of view. You guys have done a great job in general for people new to Wikipedia, but there are a few things to work on. Most of the facts listed are positive. That's fine for the things that are positive, but what about literary criticism etc. The work in the bibliography about only heterosexual characters may be interesting. Criticism (negative if it exists) may be able to justify a separate section, but generally people feel it is better to write it into the appropriate sections. Also sentences in the lead section like "She is one of the most significant Latina writers, achieving critical and commercial success on an international scale. She is one of the few authors to have her works included in both bestseller lists and university syllabi." are a shade too effusive for the facts that are given later to support them. Because of the way they portray a fact as selective and positive it moves it away from NPOV. The first sentence is more defensible than the second, but adjust it more closely to what the sources support. Perhaps "she is a significant Latina writer" or something. Though anything you can support as being factual and not biased is ok.
 * The lead section. See that link for more, but it should be 3-4 cohesive paragraphs that smoothly summarize the article. 1-2 sentence paragraphs generally aren't good for encyclopedic writing.
 * The picture needs an appropriate free license. Can you say more about what the email said when you asked them for permission to use it? Unfortunately copyright is very complicated and to use an image freely on Wikipedia it needs to be licensed under a free license such as a Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike License. Permission to use for Wikipedia isn't enough because it doesn't convey the needed freedom to the article reader/user. You'll have to ask them specifically if they are willing to license it under a Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike License. See http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Licensing and http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/ Funny enough the book cover is properly licensed and tagged, though I suppose it's a little harder to defend the fair use claim in the author's article, but it should be ok. - Taxman Talk 04:13, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Her influence on others is covered and there is plenty about the cultural influences on her, but what about literary influences on her? Does she cite any? Do critics or analysis of her work mention any? It probably justifies about a paragraph in the literary work section depending on what material there is to support it. - Taxman Talk 04:09, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Should only be in the by century novelists cats
Alvarez should not be direclty in Category:American novelists when she is in by century sub-cats.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:56, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
 * She is an American novelist, is she not? We should wait for the outcome of the relevant metadiscussions before attempting to change categorizations at the local level. Since the current categorization is correct, there is no rush. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:19, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Place of birth
Julia Alvarez wa born in New York City. Below are Alvarez's comments on her official website at [juliaalvarez.com].

"I guess the first thing I should say is that I was not born in the Dominican Republic. The flap bio on García Girls mentioned I was raised in the D.R., and a lot of bios after that changed raised to born, and soon I was getting calls from my mother."

"I was born in New York City during my parents' first and failed stay in the United States. When I was three months old, my parents, both native Dominicans, decided to return to their homeland, preferring the dictatorship of Trujillo to the U.S.A. of the early 50s. Once again, my father got involved in the underground and soon my family was in deep trouble. We left hurriedly in 1960, four months before the founders of that underground, the Mirabal sisters, were brutally murdered by the dictatorship".

This is a reliable source for the correct place of birth for Julia Alvarez. — Neonorange (talk) 18:48, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Julia Alvarez. 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/20081021220452/http://www.cafealtagracia.com/ to http://www.cafealtagracia.com/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 09:39, 2 December 2017 (UTC)