Talk:The Freewheelin' Bob Dylan

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Featured article The Freewheelin' Bob Dylan is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on May 27, 2013.
Article milestones
Date Process Result
April 15, 2010 Good article nominee Listed
May 4, 2010 Featured article candidate Promoted
Current status: Featured article

Refs revamp[edit]

I notice that the article uses refs in this format: Heylin, Bob Dylan: Behind the Shades Revisited, pp. 94-95 - this format is only acceptable when a book is cited once or twice. I'm going to work on converting them to {{Harvnb}} or {{sfn}} format, which might take a while. - I.M.S. (talk) 21:53, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I.M.S., I've started on this. I made some pretty good progress so it shouldn't take too much longer. Moisejp (talk) 13:10, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
Now I'm wondering if {{sfn}} is the way to go. The thing about {{Harvnb}} is that you get blue links on the references in the Notes section, but if you click on them they don't go anywhere. Or maybe we need to implant some kind of code into the references in the References section so that if we click on the Notes refs it sends you to the corresponding Reference ref. But I notice in the Hey Jude article, which uses {{sfn}}, if you click on the blue links in the Notes section it does send you to the corresponding Reference ref. But in Hey Jude the format of the References section is a lot different from ours. Well, I'm going to give it a bit of thought and likely tomorrow or soon start changing the refs to {{sfn}}. Let me know if you have any concerns or what not. Moisejp (talk) 12:26, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
No, no; neither of those templates are compatible with {{cite book}}. {{citation}} is required to link them. I went ahead and switched them—it should work perfect now.
Thanks for taking the time to convert all of the refs to Harvard format—it's very tedious work. I appreciate it. - I.M.S. (talk) 15:18, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Am working my way through trying to clean up the refs. A couple of concerns that I have:

  • About the WBAI Seeger interview that appears on Great White Wonder, is there any more official release of that interview anywhere? If not, maybe it can't be helped, but if there is, it might be perceived as a more reliable source.
  • The "Rolling Stone Review" at is not a review at all but just a place fans can send in their ratings. I know Rolling Stone didn't exist when Freewheelin came out, but I just think when one sees "Rolling Stone Review" one expects an actual review by a critic. I guess from one point of view 4940 ratings (that's how many fans have rated Freewheelin') has more weight than one critic's rating, but from another point of view it just seems kind of unreliable and wishy-washy as a source. But I don't know if others agree. What do others think? Moisejp (talk) 22:18, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
I have a copy of the Rolling Stone Album Guide. Here's what it has to say about FW:
The Freewheelin' Bob Dylan
4.5/5 stars

"... showed a precocious grasp of [Guthrie's] idiom. 'Blowin' In The Wind' and 'A Hard Rain's A-Gonna Fall,' from Freewheelin', were protest anthems whose popular appeal outdistanced any Guthrie song other that 'This Land Is Your Land'."

- I.M.S. (talk) 22:31, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Also, I agree with Moisejp that is questionable - although it is widely used, it is wiki-based, and would most certainly be questioned at GA/FAC. - I.M.S. (talk) 22:46, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
I agree with IMS & Moisejp that rateyour music is not a good source. Substituting the Rolling Stone Album Guide for ratetyourmusic would seem to be a good idea.
I have been adding critical commentary from all the books & sources I have access to, but if anyone has access to other material that would enhance the article, it would be a good idea for them to add it to the article.
I don't know another source for the Great White Wonder quote. If I knew another source for it, then I would use it. Both Heylin and Gill quote from the Seeger interview on GWW (see Footnote #12 in current article) but they don't quote that specific sentence, which is a very good statement of Dylan's theory of "impersonal composition". They acknowledge their source as: WBAI, June 1962. Mick gold (talk) 08:10, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
OK, let's leave it in for now. If we get hassled about it later during peer review or FAC processes we can decide what to do then. Moisejp (talk) 00:33, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

About substituting the Rolling Stone Album Guide review for ratetyourmusic, sounds like a good idea. IMS, if you have a chance to do that it'd be great! Moisejp (talk) 11:13, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

For ref #74 from Q magazine, was it one of you that added the ref? If so, do you have more complete ref information for it, such as pages, author, etc.? Moisejp (talk) 11:29, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
The Q verdict on Freewheelin' is on page 138 of Q Dylan. This was not an issue of the monthly magazine, it was a special publication completely devoted to Dylan & his work. The author of the guide was John Harris. Mick gold (talk) 20:15, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
Also, does anyone have more bibliographical information for Goldmine's "Price Guide to Collectible Record Albums"? Moisejp (talk) 11:49, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
Going back to Hey Jude, they've got basically all their references in the References section, including websites, etc., which makes the Notes section look especially nice and neat. I'm tempted to do the same. Any thoughts? A good idea? A bad idea? Too much hassle to be worthwhile? If other people think it's a good idea, I don't mind working away at that. Moisejp (talk) 11:46, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
It'll take a lot of work ... but if you're up to it, it will benefit the article greatly (and give the refs a more streamlined look). I've attempted going completely Linked Harvard before, but I've never gotten good results - it's rather confusing and time-consuming. Again, if you're up to it, converting all the refs would be great. What do others think? - I.M.S. (talk) 15:41, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
IMS and Mick gold, thanks for adding that information. IMS, which edition of the Rolling Stone Album Guide do you have? If you let me know I can fill in the other bibliographical details: Thanks! Moisejp (talk) 21:19, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
Oh, I see. You've included the year 1992, so that would be the 3rd edition, right? I'll fill in the info for that (and try to track down missing info for some of our other references) later today when I get home from work. Moisejp (talk) 22:03, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
I'm also concerned that our American Memorabilia Inc. reference may not be reliable. We don't know what the author's source of information is, and as Mick gold has noted in the footnote, some of the information is wrong. What do other people think about this source? If we could replace it with another one (even if this means replacing some of the specific info we have included with different info) it might be an idea, if others agree. Moisejp (talk) 22:08, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
They say they work with the FBI (see "about us")... but, in my opinion, I would not trust an auctioneer for reliable information. He's trying to sell a product, and, as you stated, some of the info is wrong, and the author's own sources are not stated. I'd remove it. Has anyone else written about the deleted copies or the auctions for the surviving copies? - I.M.S. (talk) 00:37, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
Oh yes - here's all the info on my RSAG:

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────The Rolling Stone Album Guide, edited by Anthony Decurtis and James Henke with Holly George-Warren. Reviewers: Mark Coleman, J. D. Considine, Paul Evans, David Mcgee. ISBN 0-679-73729-4. It's the third edition. - I.M.S. (talk) 00:38, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I tracked down the bibliographical info about the Goldmine book, but without a page number the reference is incomplete. I found the edit where the Goldmine info was added [[1]] and it was added by an anonymous user without a talk page. I don't really think we can use the Goldmine ref without a page number if we want to get to FA. Does anyone else have any reliable sources about how the deleted version of FW has become really valuable? As mentioned above, the American Memorabilia site also doesn't seem to be a reliable source, so all in all that section of our article is poorly sourced. Moisejp (talk) 00:27, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
Mick gold, is the publisher for Q Dylan: Maximum Bob! The Definitive Celebration of Rock's Ultimate Genius just Q magazine? Does it have another publisher? Does it have an isbn number or anything (if so, preferably a 10-digit one). I'm not sure if special editions of magazines have isbn numbers, just checking. I could find very little info about it online. Moisejp (talk) 00:55, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
The publisher is just Q magazine. It doesn't have another publisher. It doesn't have an ISBN. At this time (between 1999 & 2005) Q magazine published a series of special publications which were devoted to Led Zeppelin, The Beatles, Pink Floyd et al. Mick gold (talk) 07:02, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
I notice the 2004 New Rolling Stone Album Guide: Completely Revised and Updated 4th Edition [[2]] gives Freewheelin' 5 stars (with the Look Inside function you can search a review). The older version only gave it 4.5 stars? I wonder if we should use the 2004 version, not because the score is higher, but just because it's more recent. But these ratings are so arbitrary anyway. I don't have a strong opinion either way. Moisejp (talk) 02:49, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
Here is another source we may be able to use about the deleted version of FW: [[3]]. Again, Amazon lets you "look inside" this one. I'm not sure if the timeline here is contradicted by Heylin or not (Mick gold, if you have time would you be able check that?) but it has lots of good, basic info about the record that we could cite. Nothing about prices it has gone for, but it does say it is "the rarest and most valuable record in America." Moisejp (talk) 04:15, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
Good job locating that book. Responding to your question about RSAG, I would go with the latest version possible. My printing is quite dated, as it is from the early '90s. FW has been reissued several times since then. - I.M.S. (talk) 14:54, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
OK, I'm going to be busy in the next few days, but when I get a chance soon I will remove the American Memorabilia ref, change the Goldmine ref to the other one I found, and then change the info we give to reflect what is said in that one ref. Then if we want to add other info later, from Heylin or other sources, we can do so based on solid refs we've got. Actually I haven't hunted around too deeply for other reliable online sources about that or in the few Dylan biographies I own, so it's possible there are some other good sources out there. I'll also update to the most recent Rolling Stone Guide for our Rolling Stone rating. And continue to move more of our refs in the Notes section to the References section à la Hey Jude. Moisejp (talk) 02:48, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Some very general ideas[edit]

Hello. As we're working on improving this, here are just some very general ideas that struck me.

  • The Recording in New York, Songs and Themes and Outtakes sections are too long as sprawling. We need to shorten them or at the very least break them up into smaller subsections. There seems to be some overlap between these sections, as for example some of the outtakes are mentioned in the Recording section, then again in the Outtakes main part and then on the list of outtakes.
  • Possibly the whole Outtakes section could be condensed into a chart, showing the song title, month of recording, eventual release album (or "unreleased" as the case may be), and then other brief notes. In any case, I think it is excessive to have this much info about songs that weren't chosen for the album.
  • There seems to be really a lot of info about "Blowin' in the Wind". Maybe some of it could be moved to the Blowin' in the Wind article if it's not already there.
  • For the Songs and Themes section, one idea might be to have a subheading for each song?? That'd going to make 13 subheadings, so probably too much, but as it is now as just long prose without any real transitions from one song to the next. Moisejp (talk) 00:50, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
Good ideas. Responding to your "songs and themes" idea, I'm attempting a similar project here. For TKATVGPS, there's been quite a bit of literature published on the individual songs, so there's more to be said about each one. Can we do the same thing for FW? A significant amount of sourceable [is that a word?] material is required to flesh out the subsections. What do you think? - I.M.S. (talk) 03:01, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
Good ideas here. I think the Outtakes section as a chart is a good idea. Otherwise, as Moisejp writes, we give excessive info for songs that didn't make it. I also think to present Songs and Themes as 13 sub-sections, one for each song, is a good idea. That means we can write concise focused paras on each song. Perhaps BITW and AHRAGF deserve more than one para. TKATVGPS is a useful prototype. As Moisejp writes, some of BITW can be moved to the song's article, but most of it seems to be already in there.
I've added paras on the background to the creation of FW, because I thought these were useful general points about Dylan's situation, and the new direction he took, which should be stated before the recording of FW began. Agreed? Mick gold (talk) 22:17, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
I've gone through recording session, trying to eliminate all info about which track ended up on Biograph or Bootleg Series. This is in preparation for Outtakes chart, suggested by Moisejp. I've moved Cover art to after Song & Themes, based on idea that cover photo was last part of production before release of album. I haven't yet started work on Songs & Themes, but there is a lot of info in both Shelton and Heylin's Revolution In the Air so it will not be hard to produce para on each song. Mick gold (talk) 08:58, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
Your changes look good, Mick gold, and I feel we are on the right track. I.M.S., as Mick says, TKATVGPS looks like a useful prototype. I'm pretty sure we can find a paragraph's worth of relevant info to say about each song. I likely won't have time to do any serious editing in before next weekend, but I'll try to fit in bits and pieces when I can. Moisejp (talk) 13:53, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Hello, everyone - how would this look?:

Title Status Notes
"Baby, Please Don't Go" Released on Exclusive Outtakes From No Direction Home
"Ballad of Hollis Brown" Unreleased Re-recorded for Dylan's next album, The Times They Are a-Changin'
"The Death of Emmett Till" Unreleased
"Going to New Orleans" Unreleased

Examples/prototypes for articles on older albums are hard to find - many people will tell you to refer to the "Smells Like Teen Spirit", Loveless (album), or Mother's Milk FAs—all works recorded in the last 20 years. Although useful, I generally do not find these articles satisfying models for my music editing: the majority of album articles I work on concern records made in the 1950s, '60s, and '70s. Due to lack of interest (I suppose), I've noticed that there are comparatively few "classic" music FAs. Often times I am simply forced to think for myself.

So, what do others think about the table above? - I.M.S. (talk) 20:08, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Looks good to me. I can't think of any criticisms/suggestions. Mick gold (talk) 22:49, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
Looks good! Moisejp (talk) 13:15, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Folk or Folk Rock?[edit]

There are no folk rock songs on this album, there was no such thing as folk rock in 1963. How can the genre be Folk Rock? Find me a cite and I will concede... --Richhoncho (talk) 21:38, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Agreed! Mick gold (talk) 23:22, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree too! Moisejp (talk) 00:27, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

How are we doin'?[edit]

I've been re-writing this article and adding material. IMS & Moisejp have done a great job also, as well as formatting & improving refs. I feel maybe I'm running out of ideas & material. Are the paras on each song adequate? Any areas in obvious need of attention/addition/re-writing? I was wondering where we are headin'? WP:GAN, WP:FAN, WP:PR? Any thoughts? Mick gold (talk) 17:09, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Hey there Mick gold - I don't have much time, but I just wanted to say that I think you and Moisejp are doing great work to the article. Unfortunately, I'm experiencing some technical difficulties at the moment, so I won't be able to contribute steadily until I get them sorted out. Also, I believe PR or GAN is the best place to go first, but I don't think we're quite ready for that yet. - I.M.S. (talk) 23:18, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
Hi Mick gold and I.M.S. How are you doing? Yesterday I was reading through the article and here's what I think. We have made lots of progress, and Mick gold, you have done a wonderful job as always at pulling information from various sources and weaving it together. However, I still think the article is too long and there is too much detail and perhaps still some overlap between the sections. I feel the "Recording in New York" section especially has too much information. I don't know that the average reader is going to be interested in knowing in such detail the Dylan's day-by-day recording output including outtakes. Maybe some of the outtake information could be moved to the Outtakes section, and the "Hard Rain" info to the "Hard Rain" section, for example. (Another idea, which in theory could be good but which might take a lot of work, would be to start a new sub-article "The Freewheelin' Bob Dylan recording sessions" and then we could include lots and lots of info about the days-by-day recording sessions there for those who want more detail.) For Like a Rolling Stone, there were only two days of recording sessions so it wasn't hard for us to keep that part relatively short, but for FW they were so sprawled out with lots of things happening in between, and so many songs recorded, so we are going to have to try especially hard to find the right balance of including not to much but not too little info. If you agree that this is the way to go, I suggest as a group we go through section by section here on the Talk Page and decide what should stay, what should go, what should be whittled down and what should be moved. Hmm, we're at 56,000 bytes right now. Maybe something like 44,000 or 46,000 would be a good number to aim for? Moisejp (talk) 01:21, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
After I wrote the "44,000 to 46,000" figure I realized that was a totally arbitrary number that didn't mean anything, but for some reason I didn't erase it before I clicked on Save. Sorry about that! Moisejp (talk) 12:16, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for your feedback. Quick reply to Moisejp, I don't think a sub-article on "The Freewheelin' Bob Dylan recording sessions" is a great idea. Surely we should make one good article out of FW? I just looked at some music albums that are WP:FA: The Dark Side of the Moon is 83,000; Thriller is 54,000. So I'm not sure we are (a priori) too long at present. I agree with you there may be too much detail in Recording Sessions, but since the album was recorded over the course of a year, I would hope to keep that narrative. Important things happened during that year: Grossman arrived and fought with Hammond, Rotolo went to Italy, Dylan devoted two sessions to trying to make a rockabilly single, JFK announced the Cuban missile crisis, Dylan went to London, the Ed Sullivan Show controversy. I would hope we could keep that narrative. Thanks for all your contributions :) Mick gold (talk) 06:53, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
OK, no worries. I hadn't compared it to other articles, so maybe you're right that it is not necessarily long. I'll have another look at it to see if I can think of any "smaller" edits that won't disrupt the narrative but that may make it feel less long. I noticed you cut "Tomorrow Is a Long Time", which I was wondering about too. Maybe finding little tidbits here and there like that that we can cut may make a big difference. I gotta go right now, but I will have another look at it soon. Thanks for expressing your opinion straightfowardly, and I'm very sure it'll all work out in the end. Moisejp (talk) 07:14, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
Mick gold, I've made some tentative cuts that I think remove some less-important info and some info that overlaps in more than one place. Have a look and if you feel uncomfortable with any of them, do put any of the info back that you want. Thanks. Moisejp (talk) 12:12, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
BTW, if you decide you'd like to restore the Broadside info that I cut, I wonder if it might fit better in the Returning to New York section. Just a thought. Moisejp (talk) 12:23, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
Moisejp, thanks for your cuts, I think they're good. I moved that LMDIMF stuff into an improved article on the song. Only thing I restored was material on Grossman. I liked the sense that as Dylan became more successful and his talent was recognised, he was changed by that process. Mick gold (talk) 18:06, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
Mick gold, that's cool about the Grossman info. All right, so I have now finished moving all the refs from the Notes section to the References section, and I think it looks nice. Going back to what to do about Great White Wonder (ref# 12), I have two ideas. One would be to treat it like a regular reference and give information like the label Trademark of Quality and the year 1969, etc. But likely reviewers will see through that and question the reference's reliability anyway. Another possible idea would be to leave a note saying that although Heylin and Gill have not quoted this precise passage, they have quoted the interview (giving precise refs with the pages and all), and try to give some trustworthiness to the source that way. I'm not sure if that'll work either, but it's an idea. What do you think? If you like the second idea, could you add the Heylin and Gill Harvard info to ref #12? Moisejp (talk) 02:44, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
Were we going to add a third column to the Outtakes chart with very brief info about some or all of the songs? If we still want to I can get started on that. Moisejp (talk) 02:54, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
I think that adding notes with the <ref group=a> feature better suits the page's layout. If you want to go with a separate column, I'm fine with that too. - I.M.S. (talk) 04:41, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
I.M.S., I'm not too familiar with <ref group=a>. How does that work and how does it look on the page? Thanks! Moisejp (talk) 12:35, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
It's what generates footnotes[a 1] separate from the references. - I.M.S. (talk) 00:40, 24 March 2010 (UTC)


I like keeping modern criticism separate from contemporary. Does anyone have any reviews from the time of FW's release? I'm currently in the process of cleaning up the section. I'll be adding more online reviews and ratings. Take a look at this (possibly something for the Legacy section) - Adrian Denning ranks FW the "best album of the year" for 1963. - I.M.S. (talk) 01:00, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

George Starostin gives it a positive review ( all things to be added to the "Review scores" box). - I.M.S. (talk) 01:00, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
I had not heard of Adrian Denning or George Starostin before you referred to these reviews. This may be my ignorance. Are these reviews of substantial import, worth quoting, or could people query them as self-published fan sites? I'm aware some editors have objected to Bjorner on those grounds, but Bjorner just publishes detailed info, dates, set lists, not opinions. Mick gold (talk) 08:13, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
I've been through Heylin, Sounes, Gill, Gray, Shelton, Williams, Harvey & inputted the best critical comments I could find. Heylin writes: "Its success was mainly achieved by word of mouth. Few of the mainstream press reviewed the album, and, in the folk world, though he had Sing Out's unequivocal endorsement, it had garnered one unexpectedly hostile review from Minneapolis's own Little Sandy Review." (BTS, p.122) (by Paul Nelson & John Pankake) Heylin feels that review had more to do with internal tensions of Minneapolis folk scene, rather than authoritative critical commentary. In those days, Rolling Stone didn't exist. The NYT appear not to have covered it. It would be great to track down the Sing Out review. Does anyone have the complete back numbers of Melody Maker? Mick gold (talk) 08:07, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for doing the research; responding to your Starostin/Denning query: No, they definitely aren't fan sites; both of them review hundreds of different artists, and George Starostin states at the top of the page that "this page is not written from the point of view of a Bob Dylan fanatic and is not ... intended for narrow-perspective ... Dylan fanatics." Also, I don't think these sites could be challenged because, in general, the rules at WP:RS don't apply to reviews and critical opinions. - I.M.S. (talk) 17:43, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I'd never heard of either of these people either, but like Mick gold, that may be my ignorance. Are they relatively well known in some places or circles? If they are relatively well known, and can be considered to some degree an authority on music, I have no objection to using them. Moisejp (talk) 02:13, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
I'm not sure if they are especially notable or worthy of mention in the text, but I would leave their scores in the "Professional ratings" box, to show readers the general consensus among critics. - I.M.S. (talk) 03:11, 4 April 2010 (UTC)


I'm not sure if it is the same performance as the Freewheelin' outtake one, but "The Death of Emmett Till" is available (under the pseudonym Blind Boy Grunt) on the Folkways CD Broadside Reunion. Is this worth mentioning in the Outtakes chart or is Blind Boy Grunt on a Folkways compilation too far from the official Dylan canon? On it shows the CD but without the track listing [[4]] while on the track listing is shown but it appears to only be available as an mp3 download: [[5]]. Moisejp (talk) 14:44, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

From Heylin's The Recording Sessions (page 11), it looks like version of "The Death of Emmett Till" on Broadside Reunion was recorded in May 1962 for WBAI-FM's "Broadside Show". So this is not the performance that was recorded in the Columbia Studios as a Freewheelin' outtake. Still, we could mention it in the Outtakes box in the same way we mention that alternate recordings of "Hollis Brown", "Talkin' John Birch" and "Rocks and Gravel" have been released. What do people think? Moisejp (talk) 01:16, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
Moisejp, you're right to point out that the Broadside recording of "Emmett Till" is not from the FW session. I think your suggestion of mentioning Broadside version of "Emmett Till" in note form in Status is a good one. In same way that Bootleg Series 1-3 version of "John Birch" is not from FW but from Carnegie Hall, 10/26/63. Mick gold (talk) 10:38, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
FWIW the Broadside recordings will not be the same as the Columbia recordings, in all probability Dylan would have been breaching the terms of his recording contract, hence the Blind Boy Grunt tag. I was under the impression that the Broadside recordings were legally (i.e. not a boot) available back in 62/63. I am presently trying to verify this for the List of songs written by BD article. --Richhoncho (talk) 15:20, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
I have added the Blind Boy Grunt "Death of Emmett Till" reference per Heylin, May 1962 WBAI-FM performance, and reference to Folkways official site Broadside Reunion album. Moisejp (talk) 16:22, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
According to Amazon, Vol 1 and 2 (Pete Seeger only) were originally released 1963 Amazon, although I still need to track down other songs which I *remember* as been released about the same time via Broadside Ballads. I also have an Italian tape with Man of the Street, Talking bear mountain, Car Car and 5 others which I *think* came from Broadside Ballads. I have emphasised think and remember! --Richhoncho (talk) 18:15, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
OK My confusion has been lifted, some were 63 and some 72. Can't argue that. --Richhoncho (talk) 19:16, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Don't Think Twice[edit]

Moisejp, you wrote in your edit summary: "I've read in a couple places that Bruce Langhorne may have played guitar on "Don't Think Twice"; do we have info about this? In meantime, cutting this sentence." Both Heylin's BTTS and Gray's Encyclopedia state that Langhorne played the guitar part on "Don't Think Twice, It's All Right". This is mentioned in this article in "Recording in New York" under November 14 recording date, with a ref. I know that FW sleeve notes say that this track features backing musicians, but I think this is clearly a mistake, there are no musicians apart from Langhorne on guitar. I think the sentence you cut is valid because the backing musicians are only on "Corrina, Corrina". Do you hear backing musicians on any other track? Mick gold (talk) 10:57, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi Mick gold, how are you? All is well here. I think it is agreed that only Langhorne played on "Don't Think Twice". But my reasoning was, doesn't that constitute "back musicians" (or in this case, one backing musician)? If you do want to put that line back into "Corinna, Corinna" maybe we should clarify it by saying it was the only song to feature more than one backing musician. We might also want to give a reference or two (Heylin, and Gray?) saying that while the Freewheelin' liner notes state there were several backing musicians on "Don't Think Twice" there is some (do we have a case to say there was more than some?) dispute about whether this is actually true. We'd have to word it in a way where we are not taking sides and saying that there definitely aren't multiple backing musicians (that would be original research) as we can only rely on the sources we have. In the Recording Sessions (the only Heylin book I own) he suggests that one very unlikely possibility could be that "Don't Think Twice" was recorded with multiple musicians but that these were later excised from the mix. I think once we get into this question it gets kind of complicated and it might be better not to broach it. But if you think it's worthy of mentioning and don't find dealing with the entangling issues, I won't object! Moisejp (talk) 22:16, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
Hi Moisejp, I can see your point, Langhorne is indeed a backing musician. I've re-written the account of those recording sessions, incorporating Heylin's detailed info which reveals that the composition of the band varied slightly at each of the 3 recording sessions. Mick gold (talk) 08:25, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

How are we doing?[edit]

Well, it may not be perfect yet, but I personally feel this article is getting close to where we're ready to put it up for some kind of review or other (even if it's not perfect we can still iron out the final little troubles based on people's comments). Before we go ahead with putting it up for some kind of review, are there any outstanding issues we still need to deal with? A couple little things I noticed:

  • The Legacy section seems a bit scattered to me. It seems to jump around a lot without any obvious flow. But maybe Legacy sections are always like that?
  • I was trying to find some kind of chart sources for the UK, US and possibly other countries, but so far no luck. I'll have another go at that in the near future, or if not we can maybe find a good general (not specifically chart-related) source that mentions the chart positions. (For the UK there is [[6]] but someone in the LARS reviewing suggesting that we not use this site.) If people have other issues, if you want you can list them below. Moisejp (talk) 14:29, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Some comments:

  • Curly quotation marks are present in the article (“, ’) - per WP:MOS, typewriter style (", ') should be used.
  • There are several critical comments in the Legacy section that need to be relocated to Release.
  • I'm not seeing enough sourcing in the "Songs" section. Some examples of rough spots:
    • In the very short section on "Bob Dylan's Blues", Dylan begins this track with a spoken intro that pokes fun at "most of the songs that are written uptown in Tin Pan Alley, that’s where most of the folk songs come from nowadays”. [Source needed] What follows is an absurd, improvised blues [Rewording required, and a source]
    • Many people were astonished by the power and complexity of this work. [Source] For Robert Shelton, [Only one opinion is given - more should be shown]
    • and delivers some striking references to contemporary culture: a phone call from JFK, a satire on TV advertising, and some prodigious drinking. Placed at the end of the Freewheelin' LP, the song provides some welcome levity. - [Bad wording, too much WP:POV].

I'll probably have more later. A peer review would definitely help, but I'm really not certain that it meets the Good Article criteria yet. - I.M.S. (talk) 16:42, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Interesting points. I'll try to address them. Mick gold (talk) 15:52, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
I'm sorry if I sounded negative; I feel that the article has come a very long way over the past month or two, mainly thanks to your's and Moisejp's great work copyediting and adding sources. I think a peer review would benefit us; after that, we can give GAN a shot. Now's a good time to start, as a backlog elimination drive in currently underway, and we could expect a GA review within a few days. - I.M.S. (talk) 16:12, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

I've been really busy the last few days and haven't had a chance to follow up on my comments and try to help where I can. Hopefully I'll be able to find time soon. I wasn't going to get into this until after we'd discussed what needs to be done more, but since I.M.S. delved into this, I just wanted to say I would be for skipping the peer review and the GA and going straight for FA. I can't believe we are so, so far from FA level. Sure, it needs a bit of polishing based on advice from reviewers, but I think the "suggestions" (requirements) we get from FA reviewers will include the suggestions we would get from peer reviewers. We don't need to go into the FA review with a "perfect" article because there will inevitably be suggestions/requirements during the review process which will help us to bring it closer to that "perfect" ideal. It seems very unlikely the FA reviewers will tell us "You're so far from FA, we're going to fail you automatically." (And even if they did, what would we have lost? We could set our sights lower in that unlikely case.) We could do peer review→GA→another peer review→FA, but it seems like a very long process. I say, once we're done the little bit of cleaning up we're doing now, we take the plunge and go for FA. It's just a matter of steadily addressing whatever suggestions the reviewers give us. Moisejp (talk) 13:51, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

You're right; we wouldn't lose anything from a failed FA (and I don't think the article would immediately fail—it would stand a chance). Reviewers do, however, like to see that the article has at least gone through a peer review or GAR in its past. I'm alright with skipping a peer review; how about we just do GA→FA? That shouldn't take long, and we would get in-depth comments from the GA reviewer that we wouldn't receive at FAC. - I.M.S. (talk) 15:06, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
That makes sense. I'd be willing to go along with that. Mick gold, what do you think? Moisejp (talk) 21:48, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
If Mick gold has no objections, I'll submit FW for GAR. While I'm here, I'd like to bring this sentence in the lead up for discussion, which I was confused by and felt we could work on:

Whereas his eponymous debut album, Bob Dylan, had contained only two original songs, Freewheelin' initiated the process of writing contemporary words to traditional melodies, a process which transformed the 1960s folk music revival into the flowering of the singer-songwriter.

Are there any sources for this? Firstly, I would probably switch one of the "process"es to "custom", to remove the redundancy. - I.M.S. (talk) 23:12, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
I'd be happy to proceed to GAR. I had a go at re-writing the lead. Obviously if IMS or Moisejp have any ideas for the lead, they're welcome to add & to re-write. Mick gold (talk) 08:12, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
Your changes look good; I've made a few tweaks and also listed the article at WP:GAN. - I.M.S. (talk) 18:17, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
I also think your changes look good, Mick gold. This isn't about a recent change, but I was wondering about the following sentence in the Recording in New York section: "Because Dylan's songwriting talent was developing so rapidly, nothing from the April sessions appeared on Freewheelin'." I understand what that means, but will it be clear for all readers what that means? Maybe OK, or maybe better to spell it out more? Possibly something along the lines of "Because Dylan's songwriting talent was developing so rapidly, he would soon be writing even stronger material, and nothing from the April sessions appeared on Freewheelin'." But that sounds a little too subjective the way I have worded it. Moisejp (talk) 14:04, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
Thanks Moisejp. I thought the sentence "Because Dylan's songwriting talent was developing so rapidly, nothing from the April sessions appeared on Freewheelin'." was unambiguous. Shall we see if anyone else has a problem with it? Like you, I think "he would soon be writing even stronger material" sounds a tad subjective. Mick gold (talk) 14:33, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
OK, sure, if everyone thinks it's fine as it is, I have no problem with it. Possibly I was worrying too much. :-) Moisejp (talk) 22:05, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Girl from the North Country[edit]

In the discussion of connections between this song and things like "Scarborough Fair" and Elfin Knight, I had added a connection to a Dylan composition from the same period, "Liverpool Gal." It was removed for being poorly sourced. The primary sources on the song and its lyrics are discussed in detail on p.142 of Revolution in the Air by Clinton Heylin. The lyrics are published in In His Own Words 2. The song and its performance are listed on Dylan's official website. Isn't this sourced enough? If so, how should the citation be done? Slmartin00 (talk) 17:45, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi Slmartin00, I've read Heylin's entry on "Liverpool Gal" (on p.142 of Revolution In The Air) and he does not mention "Girl from the North Country" in his entry. Heylin writes that the song is based on the trad "When First Unto This Country". Heylin also writes that Dylan seems to have first recorded this song in July 1963 on the last of Tony Glover's home tapes, and that Dylan played the song to Paul Nelson "barely three weeks before he began work on this third album". (The 3rd album was The Times They Are a-Changin'.) So I don't understand what relevance LG may have to GFTNC, if it was recorded after Freewheelin' was released, and if its tune is taken from a different trad song. I must confess I've never heard "Liverpool Gal". I don't think it has appeared on a bootleg, and I can't find the lyrics on Dylan's website [7], so the song remain a mystery to me. Perhaps you can enlighten me. best, Mick gold (talk) 08:08, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:The Freewheelin' Bob Dylan/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: –– Jezhotwells (talk) 21:48, 15 April 2010 (UTC)


I shall be reviewing this article against the Good Article criteria, following its nomination for Good Article status. I see that there is a major revamp tag on the article. I shall review as it stands now, and we shall see where to go from there. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 21:54, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Hello, Jezhotwells, thank you for taking on this review. Just to introduce myself very briefly, I'm Moisejp and I have also been working on this article, along with Mick gold (talk) and I.M.S. (talk). Would you like us to take off the revamp tag while you are reviewing the article? That's just a tag we use when we're doing our WikiProject Bob Dylan Collaboration of the Month, but it doesn't mean the article is "unstable," it just means it's an article we're focused on improving. You can expect that in the next while most or all changes we make will be in response to your comments. Thanks again, and looking forward to working with you during the review process. Moisejp (talk) 22:22, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
Wow—that was fast! Thanks for the review, Jezhotwells. Moisejp—if the reviewer thinks the article is close to FA quality, there's really nothing stopping us from FAC... what do others think? Could it hurt to ask a copyeditor to make a quick pass over it before we proceed with FAC? (I don't think there's any need to rush at the moment, of course). - I.M.S. (talk) 03:15, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
Thanks a lot for your review, Jezhotwells! I.M.S., I say we discuss that under a new heading separate from this GA Review. Moisejp (talk) 16:05, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Disambiguations: no disambiguations found Green tickY

Link rot: no dead links found Green tickY

  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
    This article is well written, and follows the MoS for articles on albums. The Lead adequately summarises the article in a succinct manner.
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
    All online sources are live links, all references appear to be reliable sources. I assume good faith for off-line print sources. All references which I have been able to check support the cited statements.
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
    This article covers all aspects of the album, its conception, recording, production, release, recpetion and legacy thoroughly, without unnecessary detail.
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
    One image is used, correctly tagged as a non free album cover, no caption is required as this is the only cover that has been used for this recording.
  7. Overall:
    This is good to go, I am am more than happy to list this as a good article. I reckon this is close to FAC. Only another 53 Big Zim album articles to! Congratulations. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 22:54, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Onto FAR: What's our plan?[edit]

Following up on I.M.S.'s question in the GA review above, now that we've got this to GA, what's our plan of action to get to FA? Moisejp (talk) 16:10, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

I'd be happy to proceed to FAC. Anyone got any brilliant ideas for improving this article before we go for it? Mick gold (talk) 16:41, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
I say we just go ahead with with FAC, see what they tell us needs to be changed and respond accordingly. Moisejp (talk) 06:15, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
Yes, indeed. Mick gold (talk) 22:27, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
Sure. I don't have time at the moment; would one of you care to file the nomination? - I.M.S. (talk) 17:28, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
Moisejp, do you want to go ahead & do the honours? I'm not brilliant at this software FAC procedure? Mick gold (talk) 06:35, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
OK, I have nominated it for FA. Here we go! Moisejp (talk) 15:47, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
Good job, and just a few points - you should make a note that this nom is on behalf of the WP:DYLAN collaboration team, and list all major contributors in the nominator area. - I.M.S. (talk) 22:09, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
It seems Rolling Stone has for whatever reason removed the 500 Greatest Albums article from their archives. I don't think there will be any other official sites online we will be able to cite for the #97 ranking. At the The 500 Greatest Albums of All Time page there is some bibliographical information about the printed magazine and book forms of the list. I'm worried it is not as complete as we have been doing, and there is no page number for the Freewheelin' info. My idea was to maybe contact some of the main editors of that page to see if any of them owns a copy of the magazine or book, so we could get the bibliographical info from them. Here [[8]] it shows the contributors to the page. The top one, Anthonylombardi, seems to no longer be active. Do you think it'd be better to send a group message to a bunch of them, or a more personalized message to just a handful of them? Scorpion0422 seems like a good, serious editor, maybe that'd be a good place to start. I'll try to get to it in the next few days. Moisejp (talk) 14:39, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
I wrote a message to Scorpion0422 just now. If we're lucky, he or she may be able help us. Otherwise, maybe I can try another editor. Moisejp (talk) 11:27, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
Scorpion0422 replied, fortunately did have a copy of the book, and gave me all the bibliographical information, which is great. The only problem is that the book list is slightly different and FW appears as #98, not 97. This is a small detail but may be a hassle to explain in the article. I think the #97 ranking, which appeared online and presumably in the original magazine, is the more "official" one. Hmm, I'll have to think about how to handle this. If you have any ideas, let me know. (You can see Scorpion's comment on my talk page for more details about this.) Thanks. Moisejp (talk) 22:07, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for doing the research, Moisejp. Since you now have bibliographic info to cite the Rolling Stone book of The 500 Greatest Albums of All Time, why not go ahead and cite that? It's an important index of RS critical opinion. Otherwise we're trying to cite a dead RS website link. What does I.M.S. think? Mick gold (talk) 17:19, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
I would cite the book and its position; also, look here for some useful statistics and info: --- the site was accepted as an RS in my most recent FAC. - I.M.S. (talk) 00:15, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the advice, I've made the changes. I.M.S., thanks a lot for the tip. That helps a lot. By the way, there are a whole bunch more rankings and ratings for the album on that site. We could possibly add more to the article (but don't necessarily have to)—what do you think? Also, I wanted to ask whether you think we should remove the RS ranking from the lead as it may give too much weight to one list. If we did decide to add other lists' rankings to the article, in the lead we could say something like "The album has appeared on many 'best album' rankings" or something to that effect. But, on the other hand, it might be difficult to track down the complete bibliographical info, including page numbers, for many of the lists (many of which seem to appear in books), so I'm not saying I necessarily do want to try to add more, just wondering what you think. If we did decide to try we might get lucky and be able to track down some page numbers on googlebooks or on Amazon. Moisejp (talk) 11:01, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I often find that Rolling Stone rankings are overused and given undue weight. For the lead, I think your "appeared on many" idea would be good, but we could also just mention two or three of the most notable rankings, if we secure individual sources.
Here's another idea: how about a table of "awards and rankings"? I've noticed several other GA/FA album articles that use them. - I.M.S. (talk) 01:48, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────I think that collapsible table looks great, Moisejp. Good work! - I.M.S. (talk) 01:47, 29 April 2010 (UTC)


Regarding this, I'm fine either way. Let's keep the original version. Thanks for providing feedback! - I.M.S. (talk) 05:39, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

FA! Congratulations[edit]

I've been watching the flurry of activity here in the last month. Congratulations to you all for this and thanks for all the work! (John User:Jwy talk) 20:47, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I echo that! Congratulations! –– Jezhotwells (talk) 20:57, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
And I too, echo that, now there's more echo on this article than on the album ;). --Richhoncho (talk) 13:05, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
Well done...Modernist (talk) 13:14, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, everyone! Moisejp (talk) 11:43, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
Gee, shucks, thanks everyone for your wonderful support. More echo indeed :) Mick gold (talk) 17:16, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

No. cowbell. More cowbell. (John User:Jwy talk) 17:23, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Professional reviews[edit]

It seems that the article is missing a "professional reviews" box. If no one has any objections, I'll add one when I can. - I.M.S. (talk) 00:19, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Solid Road[edit]

"Rocks and Gravel" isn't on the original cover, but "Solid Road" is. Is "Solid Road" the same song as "Rocks and Gravel"? (talk) 00:36, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

The song was copyrighted as "Rocks and Gravel", and that song is still listed on Dylan's website [9] Mick gold (talk) 13:28, 26 September 2010 (UTC)


Somebody has added "Going to New Orleans" as an outtake and cited Bjorner. First question: Does Heylin (1996) mention nothing about this song? Second question: Did we decide our policy is not to use Bjorner because it has sometimes been challenged as a reliable source in previous FACs? Or do we want to keep this Bjorner citation? Either way we need to adjust the Outtakes section because currently we have "songs that have never been released have been documented by biographer Clinton Heylin." Also, if we decide to keep Bjorner then I'll probably add him to the References section. Moisejp (talk) 01:25, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

I would argue that Bjorner is a valid reference for Dylan recording sessions. There is still one Bjorner ref in the Bob Dylan article which has survived at least one WP:FAR. I noticed that in recent Sean Wilentz book on Dylan, Bjorner website appears as footnote to p. 319, referencing something Dylan said in concert performance, which is the same way the Bjorner footnote functions in the Bob Dylan article. I would argue that if Bjorner can serve as a footnote for Professor Wilentz, we can also use this website as reference material. Mick gold (talk) 13:35, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
I have added Bjorner to References and also added the liner notes for Bootleg Seres Vol. 9. I have tried to be as consistent as possible on the Outtakes chart. Many or most of these songs have demo versions that have recently appeared on Bootleg Seres Vol. 9. However, in the Outtakes chart I have only mentioned those where the Freewheelin' version itself has not been released. In these cases the BS Vol. 9 versions are in the same category as, say, the live version of "Rocks and Gravel" appearing on Live at the Gaslight 1962 or the Broadside "Emmett Till" on Broadside Ballads. But I reasoned that if the FW version itself has been officially released (on BS 1-3, Biograph, etc.) there's no need to mention the alternate version on BS 9. For one thing, I didn't want to overly clutter up the Outtakes table. Does everyone agree with this? Moisejp (talk) 14:57, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
I agree with Moisejp's suggestion. If Outtake has been officially released on BS, Biograph, then Witmark demo is irrelevant, because it's not the FW recording; it would have the same status as the many live recordings of (for instance) "Hard Rain" which BD has released Mick gold (talk) 14:30, 26 November 2010 (UTC)


Per the article itself, George Barnes and Gene Ramey--like Art Davis (who is rightly not listed among the personnel)--do not play on any tracks that appear on the album. I see no reason why they should appear among the other players, who per the article do appear on "Corrina, Corrina" and (in the case of Langhorne) on "Don't Think Twice".Cbben (talk) 19:07, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

I think you're right; article has been edited. Mick gold (talk) 17:39, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

House Carpenter[edit]

I'm tempted to removed "House Carpenter" from the "Outtakes" section because Dylan did not record it for Freewheelin. Per Bjorner, this was the last song he recorded for Bob Dylan, and the liner notes to The Bootleg Series Vol. 1-3 mistakenly gave a different recording date, during the Freewheelin sessions. (see [10]). It seems to me that it is appropriate to remove this. BootleggerWill (talk) 20:11, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

World War III[edit]

I'll Let You Be In My Dreams, If I Can Be In Yours may be of interest. . . dave souza, talk 07:37, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

"The Death of Emmett Till" — censored?[edit]

Hi all, congrats on a strong and well-timed featured article. I'm wondering if anyone with a collection of Dylan books can provide more information about why & how "The Death of Emmet Till" was left off the album? Matthew Gordon (http://mabrgordon DOT hubpages DOT com/hub/A-Freewheelin-Time-A-Look-at-Bob-Dylan-and-Consensus-Politics) suggests that it the song would have been too controversial. It was definitely controversial and direct censorship seems likely. However, I can't find any other texts discussing its exclusion specifically. Thoughts? (Data?) Thanks, groupuscule (talk) 02:37, 27 May 2013 (UTC) P.S. DIY URL thanks to obnoxious spam filter... on a talk page, really?

Clinton Heylin's song-by-song account of Dylan's work, Revolution In The Air, discusses Emmett Till on pp 71 -74. Heylin is rude about the quality of the song, but he does not allege it was censored. An enormous amount of material was recorded during the 8 recording sessions for Freewheelin'. In the first two sessions, Dylan recorded 15 songs: Going to New Orleans; Sally Gal; Rambling Gambling Willie; Corrina Corrina; The Death of Emmett Till; Talking John Birch Paranoid Blues; (I Heard That) Lonesome Whistle; Rocks and Gravel; Let Me Die In My Footsteps; Talking Hava Negila Blues; Sally Gal; Baby Please Don’t Go; Milk Cow Calf’s Blues; Wichita (Going to Louisiana); Talking Bear Mountain Picnic Massacre Blues. Not one of these recordings made it onto the album. The released version of Corrina Corrina was re-recorded on 26 October 1962. I find it easy to believe that when selecting material for the album, Dylan believed that political songs such as Blowin' In the Wind, A Hard Rain, Masters of War, and Oxford Town were more topical and more mature songs than Emmett Till, which is about a murder committed in 1955. Mick gold (talk) 17:02, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Outtakes Need To Be Updated[edit]

A number of the tracks listed as Unreleased were released in 2012 on the Sony 50th Anniversary box set for 1962 (Europe only).Mike Nomad (talk) 03:46, 16 March 2015 (UTC)


Could someone sort out the description that pop up when you mouse over the cover. It only stays up for 5 seconds and then vanishes. Very annoying!Picknick99 (talk) 21:12, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on The Freewheelin' Bob Dylan. 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:

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

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • 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.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:12, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
Cite error: There are <ref group=a> tags on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=a}} template (see the help page).