This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
The Naked Brothers Band: The Movie article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
The Naked Brothers Band: The Movie has been listed as one of the Media and drama good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article has a rambly style, it needs to be reworked! Weirdo55 14:09, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
After coming here, I still know almost nothing at all about this movie. Perhaps a plot summary is in order? 137.99.136.194 ( talk) 15:39, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
I fixed up the article.
Check it out when you get the chance.
ATC
(talk)
22:07, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
The article has definitely improved since I last looked at it! A few suggestions... first, the "Production" section does not need to use {{ cquote}} templates. I think that combined with the short paragraphs, the section looks skeletal. Just use regular quotation marks and combine everything into one or two paragraphs. Might need to give similar treatment to the structure in the "Awards and nominations" section. Also, consider shuffling the sections in the film article. For example, "Awards and nominations" should be more toward the end. Also, could "Special appearances" become a subsection under the "Cast" section? It may also be worth writing a "Release" section and have "DVD releases" and "International debuts" content rewritten into prose. Also, I think the references could use some consistency in formatting... from what I can tell, {{ cite web}} and {{ cite news}} templates would be appropriate. — Erik ( talk • contrib) 16:02, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
User: Eric,
I was wondering if you like the extension I made on the plot or do you think it's too long?
Thanx!
ATC
(talk)
06:34, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
The rewrite is definitely a marked improvement! Rewriting the plot is always a challenge because you have to figure out how to best summarize events. I copied and pasted the "Plot" section into Microsoft Word, and it says 999 words. (This is down from about 2,219 words!) WP:FILMPLOT suggests between 400 and 700 words, and I do not think that this is a complicated film. (A complicated film would be something like a work by David Lynch!) Do you think that it could be trimmed any further? I'd try to help, but I'm not familiar enough with the film to believe I could trim it adequately. — Erik ( talk • contrib) 21:40, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
Thanx for letting me know that you have this talk page on your watchlist.
I hesitated to ask you.
Now that makes it so much easier for me.
I will try to trim it up even more.
Thanx!
ATC
(talk)
00:19, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
In my copyediting, I've come across a few sentences that could have alternate meanings. As an outsider to the subject, I can't assess these, so I'll leave comments for the article's primary author, ATC:
I need to leave now, will probably add more notes later. Jamie ☆ S93 00:09, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Also, The New York Times article—the first reference—says that it was a "...five week adventure in 2004—using mostly friends and family members with a budget under one million dollars". So, would mind adding how - it took five weeks to film the movies - with that NYTimes reference? Thanx! ATC . Talk 01:32, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Thank you so much for taking the time to copyedit. ATC . Talk 02:11, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for all the help and I'll take your advice and hope that it could get a good grade. ATC . Talk 01:19, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
Starting review Jezhotwells ( talk) 19:15, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
Quick fail criteria assessment
No quick fail problems. Commencing substantive review. Jezhotwells ( talk) 19:23, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
I'll add some here as and when I can find them:
Steve T • C 19:54, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
And finally! The semi-mythical viewing figures information (2.7 million):
Steve T • C 20:04, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
I found one:
ATC . Talk 22:10, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
In the second paragraph, it is unclear which Wolff contributed the underscore or performed "Rathskeller Polka". Later in the same paragraph, we refer to things that Nat has done and other things that Wolff has done. I assume the second Wolff is Alex, but not knowing the subject, I can't really copy edit this section further. -- Thomprod ( talk) 19:16, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
I fixed what you were talking about and when I say Wolff (since adults are considered by their last name, while children are normally by their first name) so I changed it to Michael Wolff each time, as an exception of repetition since, "Mr." isn't allowed to be used in an encyclopedia or at least not this one. ATC . Talk 21:39, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
As requested, here are some comments on the article as a followup to the peer review comments I made. While this looks better, there are still some rough spots - I will try to point some of them out, but do not have time to point all of them out (hopefully this will give an idea of what to look for / fix in general).
Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog. I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:41, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
The verb began just seems odd to me in In late 2005 the enterprise began as an independent film, which received an award at a film festival;... I thought that "the enterprise began" when they started filming?
Note regarding comment on the lead section via
Talk:The Naked Brothers Band: The Movie: No, that's not when they started filming - it even says in the paragraph before that, that principal photography was filmed in mid-2004. I was trying to say that it began as a low budget, family project (or enterprise) and when no one wanted to put up the money to making it a film (which make sense because Polly Draper made her directing debut with this film and was famous to a degree, but not known enough). This is why in late 2005, they entered the indie film for a screening at the Hamptons International Film Festival where it won an award and was then picked up by an executive from Nickelodeon who brought it for the network to make it a show.
...So anyway, what would be a better way to say "In late 2005, the enterprise began as an independent film, which received an award at a film festival;..."? Thanx! ATC . Talk 00:13, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
(out) OK, I understood that a small film looking for a distribution deal might be marketed to distributors, but if that does not work here, sorry. I looked at the body of the article and there are two sentences there that seem to apply. Both sentences have problems (and show this needs more copyediting).
The first is in the Filming section Originally the film was an independent family home-video.[8] The problem is that I am not sure what "an independent family home-video" is exactly. A home-video sounds like someone with a camera videotaping the kids to show Grandma, and adding family makes it sound even more like this. I have heard of independent films and of direct-to-video releases. Would either of these work here in the first sentence? I also note that the same ref is used for both sentences - sometimes it is good to use a direct quote, so perhaps you could use whatever term they used to describe this as in that (I am not going to watch all 73 minutes).
The second sentence is in the "Releases and debuts" section Box offices initially didn't want to put the marketing money into making it a movie, and as a result, Draper and Wolff decided to enter it into a film festival and television executive Albie Hecht (former president of Nickelodeon and founder of Spike) persuaded them to make it a television show. This is a run-on sentence and needs to be rewritten (probably split into two). "Box office" can either refer to the ticket booth at a theater, or more generally to the monetary receipts a movie or play brings in. Neither the booth where tickets are taken, not the money brought in by a film can make the decision to put money into marketing a film. Usually an independent film gets a distribution deal which includes marketing. Sometimes someone from the distributor(s) will add themself as a producer in the credits. I also note that this section never explicitly says that Hecht bought the film, presumably for Nickolodeon. I am not sure, but would something like this work better: Distributors initially didn't want to put the marketing money into releasing it as a movie, so Draper and Wolff decided to enter it into a film festival, where it won a prize. Television executive Albie Hecht, a former president of Nickelodeon and founder of Spike, bought the rights to the film and persuaded Draper and Wolff to make it the pilot for a television show.
So what about the sentence in the lead? It now reads In late 2005 the enterprise began as an independent film, which received an award at a film festival; this prompted Nickelodeon to co-opt it as a pilot for the television show, The Naked Brothers Band. How about something like In late 2005, Draper and Wolff sought a distributor for their independent film, which received an award at a film festival; this prompted Nickelodeon to co-opt it as a pilot for the television show, The Naked Brothers Band.
This level of work is a sentence by sentence copy edit. As it says on my talk page, I am glad to review articles, but do not have time to do copy edits. This is especially true here, where I do not know the show and do not normally write about television shows or movies. I would be glad to look at it again after someone else copy edits it, but this is about as far as I can go here. Sorry, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 17:40, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
Let's do the following:
When the Nat performed the 9/11 charity concert, was the band the Silver Boulders or the Naked Brothers? I think that should be mentioned. Also, if it was the Silver Boulders (which I assume is correct) when did the Silver Boulders break up and why? I know we've discussed this, but the chronology in the article is still a little murky. Truthkeeper88 ( talk) 03:37, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
I've changed the first sentence to family project, though I'm not sure that's accurate. With a budget of $1 million, Draper and Wolff must have had some intention of selling the film, which brings it out of the "family project" realm. You might consider not having that sentence at all in the filming section as it's a little confusing, as Ruhrfish explains above. (BTW -- did they put up their own money, or did they have backers?) Truthkeeper88 ( talk) 23:21, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
Truthkeeper88, your recent edit in the development section is faulsely inacurate. Polly didn't create "Don't Eat Off My Plate", Nat wrote, produced, and directed it and Polly interviewed Nat and his friends. ATC . Talk 01:20, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
Okay, I've run through the entire article, cleaning up as much as possible. I haven't really touched the Plot section as I haven't seen the film. In the other section I've clarified and reorganized for flow as much as possible; and in some cases matched the text to the source more closely. A couple of issues I noticed: there's a "Cast & characters" section and a "Casting" section and some of material overlaps. In the least, I'd suggest changing the name of the "Cast and characters" to "Main characters" and then leave "Casting" as is. A more comprehensive change would be to merge the two, but I'm not certain that's necessary. (Btw -- I'm aware I named the Cast and characters, but don't want to change w/out your approval).
I don't think this sentence adds much: Of the shooting process, Draper explains: "We would sneak into locations and run." The sentence makes me wonder why they had to sneak and why they had to run, and as a writer you don't want your readers to wonder, so unless the sentence can be explained, I'd suggest removing.
Go ahead and check for typos, etc., that I may have made and fix them. Decide whether or not make the change to section header for "Cast and characters". After that, I recommend freezing this version until someone (maybe Ruhrfish) can take a look and give feedback. If good, then keep it frozen and relist as a FAC. If not, back to the drawing board.
Truthkeeper88 (
talk)
17:05, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
Hi Truthkeeper88, when you get the chance (in the next week or so) I was wondering if you could help me out on one last additional text, which would be in the "Filming" section. There's no sources explaining this, but it might have the same exception that the plot and cast section has. "The Making of The Featurette" was an exclusive bonus (forgot the exact word for it) with the DVD and featured the actual making of the film. The few couple of (and important) scenes that took place are listed below:
Is it against the rules to add this without a reference? Because people can only tell if they buy the DVD to watch it (just like the Plot and Cast). ATC . Talk 06:56, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
I had to delete some text because a more reliable source could not be found. http://www.top40-charts.com/news.php?nid=34898 for: The Naked Brothers Band: The Movie#Awards and reception with the sentence: it was placed in the top-10 spot on the Nielsen VideoScan children's non-theatrical DVD charts.[36]: "The Naked Brothers Band – Release of Their Debut CD". News Blaze. October 11, 2007. Retrieved June 15, 2009. I went to the Nielsen news release website and looked up top 10 releases in 2007 (on a PDF file) and the film was not listed. Top40 charts is the only source that comes up on Google (That and NewsBlaze). If possible, let me know, if someone finds a more reliable source. ATC . Talk 04:08, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on The Naked Brothers Band: The Movie. 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.
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 18:59, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
The Naked Brothers Band: The Movie article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
The Naked Brothers Band: The Movie has been listed as one of the Media and drama good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article has a rambly style, it needs to be reworked! Weirdo55 14:09, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
After coming here, I still know almost nothing at all about this movie. Perhaps a plot summary is in order? 137.99.136.194 ( talk) 15:39, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
I fixed up the article.
Check it out when you get the chance.
ATC
(talk)
22:07, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
The article has definitely improved since I last looked at it! A few suggestions... first, the "Production" section does not need to use {{ cquote}} templates. I think that combined with the short paragraphs, the section looks skeletal. Just use regular quotation marks and combine everything into one or two paragraphs. Might need to give similar treatment to the structure in the "Awards and nominations" section. Also, consider shuffling the sections in the film article. For example, "Awards and nominations" should be more toward the end. Also, could "Special appearances" become a subsection under the "Cast" section? It may also be worth writing a "Release" section and have "DVD releases" and "International debuts" content rewritten into prose. Also, I think the references could use some consistency in formatting... from what I can tell, {{ cite web}} and {{ cite news}} templates would be appropriate. — Erik ( talk • contrib) 16:02, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
User: Eric,
I was wondering if you like the extension I made on the plot or do you think it's too long?
Thanx!
ATC
(talk)
06:34, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
The rewrite is definitely a marked improvement! Rewriting the plot is always a challenge because you have to figure out how to best summarize events. I copied and pasted the "Plot" section into Microsoft Word, and it says 999 words. (This is down from about 2,219 words!) WP:FILMPLOT suggests between 400 and 700 words, and I do not think that this is a complicated film. (A complicated film would be something like a work by David Lynch!) Do you think that it could be trimmed any further? I'd try to help, but I'm not familiar enough with the film to believe I could trim it adequately. — Erik ( talk • contrib) 21:40, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
Thanx for letting me know that you have this talk page on your watchlist.
I hesitated to ask you.
Now that makes it so much easier for me.
I will try to trim it up even more.
Thanx!
ATC
(talk)
00:19, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
In my copyediting, I've come across a few sentences that could have alternate meanings. As an outsider to the subject, I can't assess these, so I'll leave comments for the article's primary author, ATC:
I need to leave now, will probably add more notes later. Jamie ☆ S93 00:09, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Also, The New York Times article—the first reference—says that it was a "...five week adventure in 2004—using mostly friends and family members with a budget under one million dollars". So, would mind adding how - it took five weeks to film the movies - with that NYTimes reference? Thanx! ATC . Talk 01:32, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Thank you so much for taking the time to copyedit. ATC . Talk 02:11, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for all the help and I'll take your advice and hope that it could get a good grade. ATC . Talk 01:19, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
Starting review Jezhotwells ( talk) 19:15, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
Quick fail criteria assessment
No quick fail problems. Commencing substantive review. Jezhotwells ( talk) 19:23, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
I'll add some here as and when I can find them:
Steve T • C 19:54, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
And finally! The semi-mythical viewing figures information (2.7 million):
Steve T • C 20:04, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
I found one:
ATC . Talk 22:10, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
In the second paragraph, it is unclear which Wolff contributed the underscore or performed "Rathskeller Polka". Later in the same paragraph, we refer to things that Nat has done and other things that Wolff has done. I assume the second Wolff is Alex, but not knowing the subject, I can't really copy edit this section further. -- Thomprod ( talk) 19:16, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
I fixed what you were talking about and when I say Wolff (since adults are considered by their last name, while children are normally by their first name) so I changed it to Michael Wolff each time, as an exception of repetition since, "Mr." isn't allowed to be used in an encyclopedia or at least not this one. ATC . Talk 21:39, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
As requested, here are some comments on the article as a followup to the peer review comments I made. While this looks better, there are still some rough spots - I will try to point some of them out, but do not have time to point all of them out (hopefully this will give an idea of what to look for / fix in general).
Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog. I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:41, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
The verb began just seems odd to me in In late 2005 the enterprise began as an independent film, which received an award at a film festival;... I thought that "the enterprise began" when they started filming?
Note regarding comment on the lead section via
Talk:The Naked Brothers Band: The Movie: No, that's not when they started filming - it even says in the paragraph before that, that principal photography was filmed in mid-2004. I was trying to say that it began as a low budget, family project (or enterprise) and when no one wanted to put up the money to making it a film (which make sense because Polly Draper made her directing debut with this film and was famous to a degree, but not known enough). This is why in late 2005, they entered the indie film for a screening at the Hamptons International Film Festival where it won an award and was then picked up by an executive from Nickelodeon who brought it for the network to make it a show.
...So anyway, what would be a better way to say "In late 2005, the enterprise began as an independent film, which received an award at a film festival;..."? Thanx! ATC . Talk 00:13, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
(out) OK, I understood that a small film looking for a distribution deal might be marketed to distributors, but if that does not work here, sorry. I looked at the body of the article and there are two sentences there that seem to apply. Both sentences have problems (and show this needs more copyediting).
The first is in the Filming section Originally the film was an independent family home-video.[8] The problem is that I am not sure what "an independent family home-video" is exactly. A home-video sounds like someone with a camera videotaping the kids to show Grandma, and adding family makes it sound even more like this. I have heard of independent films and of direct-to-video releases. Would either of these work here in the first sentence? I also note that the same ref is used for both sentences - sometimes it is good to use a direct quote, so perhaps you could use whatever term they used to describe this as in that (I am not going to watch all 73 minutes).
The second sentence is in the "Releases and debuts" section Box offices initially didn't want to put the marketing money into making it a movie, and as a result, Draper and Wolff decided to enter it into a film festival and television executive Albie Hecht (former president of Nickelodeon and founder of Spike) persuaded them to make it a television show. This is a run-on sentence and needs to be rewritten (probably split into two). "Box office" can either refer to the ticket booth at a theater, or more generally to the monetary receipts a movie or play brings in. Neither the booth where tickets are taken, not the money brought in by a film can make the decision to put money into marketing a film. Usually an independent film gets a distribution deal which includes marketing. Sometimes someone from the distributor(s) will add themself as a producer in the credits. I also note that this section never explicitly says that Hecht bought the film, presumably for Nickolodeon. I am not sure, but would something like this work better: Distributors initially didn't want to put the marketing money into releasing it as a movie, so Draper and Wolff decided to enter it into a film festival, where it won a prize. Television executive Albie Hecht, a former president of Nickelodeon and founder of Spike, bought the rights to the film and persuaded Draper and Wolff to make it the pilot for a television show.
So what about the sentence in the lead? It now reads In late 2005 the enterprise began as an independent film, which received an award at a film festival; this prompted Nickelodeon to co-opt it as a pilot for the television show, The Naked Brothers Band. How about something like In late 2005, Draper and Wolff sought a distributor for their independent film, which received an award at a film festival; this prompted Nickelodeon to co-opt it as a pilot for the television show, The Naked Brothers Band.
This level of work is a sentence by sentence copy edit. As it says on my talk page, I am glad to review articles, but do not have time to do copy edits. This is especially true here, where I do not know the show and do not normally write about television shows or movies. I would be glad to look at it again after someone else copy edits it, but this is about as far as I can go here. Sorry, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 17:40, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
Let's do the following:
When the Nat performed the 9/11 charity concert, was the band the Silver Boulders or the Naked Brothers? I think that should be mentioned. Also, if it was the Silver Boulders (which I assume is correct) when did the Silver Boulders break up and why? I know we've discussed this, but the chronology in the article is still a little murky. Truthkeeper88 ( talk) 03:37, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
I've changed the first sentence to family project, though I'm not sure that's accurate. With a budget of $1 million, Draper and Wolff must have had some intention of selling the film, which brings it out of the "family project" realm. You might consider not having that sentence at all in the filming section as it's a little confusing, as Ruhrfish explains above. (BTW -- did they put up their own money, or did they have backers?) Truthkeeper88 ( talk) 23:21, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
Truthkeeper88, your recent edit in the development section is faulsely inacurate. Polly didn't create "Don't Eat Off My Plate", Nat wrote, produced, and directed it and Polly interviewed Nat and his friends. ATC . Talk 01:20, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
Okay, I've run through the entire article, cleaning up as much as possible. I haven't really touched the Plot section as I haven't seen the film. In the other section I've clarified and reorganized for flow as much as possible; and in some cases matched the text to the source more closely. A couple of issues I noticed: there's a "Cast & characters" section and a "Casting" section and some of material overlaps. In the least, I'd suggest changing the name of the "Cast and characters" to "Main characters" and then leave "Casting" as is. A more comprehensive change would be to merge the two, but I'm not certain that's necessary. (Btw -- I'm aware I named the Cast and characters, but don't want to change w/out your approval).
I don't think this sentence adds much: Of the shooting process, Draper explains: "We would sneak into locations and run." The sentence makes me wonder why they had to sneak and why they had to run, and as a writer you don't want your readers to wonder, so unless the sentence can be explained, I'd suggest removing.
Go ahead and check for typos, etc., that I may have made and fix them. Decide whether or not make the change to section header for "Cast and characters". After that, I recommend freezing this version until someone (maybe Ruhrfish) can take a look and give feedback. If good, then keep it frozen and relist as a FAC. If not, back to the drawing board.
Truthkeeper88 (
talk)
17:05, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
Hi Truthkeeper88, when you get the chance (in the next week or so) I was wondering if you could help me out on one last additional text, which would be in the "Filming" section. There's no sources explaining this, but it might have the same exception that the plot and cast section has. "The Making of The Featurette" was an exclusive bonus (forgot the exact word for it) with the DVD and featured the actual making of the film. The few couple of (and important) scenes that took place are listed below:
Is it against the rules to add this without a reference? Because people can only tell if they buy the DVD to watch it (just like the Plot and Cast). ATC . Talk 06:56, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
I had to delete some text because a more reliable source could not be found. http://www.top40-charts.com/news.php?nid=34898 for: The Naked Brothers Band: The Movie#Awards and reception with the sentence: it was placed in the top-10 spot on the Nielsen VideoScan children's non-theatrical DVD charts.[36]: "The Naked Brothers Band – Release of Their Debut CD". News Blaze. October 11, 2007. Retrieved June 15, 2009. I went to the Nielsen news release website and looked up top 10 releases in 2007 (on a PDF file) and the film was not listed. Top40 charts is the only source that comes up on Google (That and NewsBlaze). If possible, let me know, if someone finds a more reliable source. ATC . Talk 04:08, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on The Naked Brothers Band: The Movie. 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.
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 18:59, 30 April 2017 (UTC)