# Talk:Blackcurrant

Done. Darorcilmir (talk) 23:06, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Can an American confirm that over there creme de cassis means a blackcurrant cordial (as the article currently suggests) rather than a liqueur?  Mintguy 18:23, 17 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I'm an American who has lived in Europe.  Creme de Cassis is a liquer, as with Creme de Menthe, Creme de Cacao, etc.  "Creme de ___ " are generally more syrupy in texture than spirits, and primarily used as mixers to flavour other drinks. [1] May also be served in tiny, stemmed cordial glasses [2]69.22.236.244 (talk) 15:28, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Cordial (but again a bit thick, syrupy) is also available, usually in +/- 70cl cylindric tin bottles, e.g. from the brand "Spontin". But then it is called "Sirop de ..." 
Menthe variants exist also (see french wiki "Sirop de menthe").  The blackcurrant and other fruits variants are common everwhere in (Western?) Europe, I've never seen the Menthe variety outside France. 
88.159.64.210 (talk) 15:33, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

The blackcurrant seems pretty much non-existent in North America, which is surprising.  Is there any good reason (climate, pests, etc) why this is so?
--Morven 23:55, 17 Dec 2003 (UTC)

It is an alternate host for a rust of wheat and banned by USDA in wheat-growing states. Wetman 02:15, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Also white pine blister rust, so banned in states with white pine forests (most of the Northeast). Bruxism 21:35, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I've just found out why Blackcurrant (and Ribena) is so popular in Britain, and this needs to go into the article. ... During WWII fruits rich in vitamin C like oranges became almost impossible to obtain, blackcurrant cultivation was dramatically increased in order to provide children with an alternative source of Vitamin C. From 1942 the almost the entire British blackcurrant crop was made into blackcurrant syrup (or cordial) and distributed to the nation's children for free.  Mintguy (T) 01:16, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Orange juice production as we currently know it happened after WWII.  Prior to WWII, blackcurrant juice was the primary source of Vitamin C for Germany; following the invention of frozen orange juice in 1948[3], which allowed it to be shipped worldwide.  Also, the term "cordial" is generally assumed to be liquer, which is rarely distributed to children (or anyone else), for free.69.22.236.244 (talk) 15:16, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

This may well be true in america, but in the UK a cordial is always non-alcoholic. Starfiend (talk) 15:03, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
"The fruit has an extraordinarily high vitamin C content (302% of the Daily Value, table)" found in the text is meaningless.  302% of the daily value per berry?  Per hectogram?  Per tonne?
~~  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.28.75.65 (talk) 14:25, 27 August 2008 (UTC) 

Someone moved this page to Black Currant.  I moved it back since I disagree with the renaming.  For one thing, the capitalised second word is against Wikipedia convention; for another, the single-word version is more common.  Rather than re-making this change, discuss it here. —Morven 06:10, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Agreed.  It is never called a Black Currant, except when discussing currants generally, when someone might occasionally write about "currants (black, white or red)" seglea 06:25, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)
That one-word spelling looks weird to me, though blackcurrant is as/more common on the net as/than black currant according to Google. I guess it's on the model of blackberry, blueberry, rather than red pepper, green pepper. Still, the one-word form doesn't appear in any dictionary that I can find, e.g. dictionary.com, so I would favor the two-word form (no capitals, though). Of course, I'm no expert. I wonder if the one-word form is more of a British/Commonwealth English thing. Kaicarver (talk) 09:43, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
Could be. I'm British, and would notice "black currant" as unusual; it's almost always spelt as one word here. Loganberry (Talk) 00:56, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

The aftertaste is not "bitter" as the text says, it is acidic and tannic, or "woody" I'd say. Anyone agree strongly enough to change the text? Wetman 02:15, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I take issue with the text that says the fruit 'requires sugar to be palatable'. It's true, they are tart but they are easily edible without being sweetened if you have a taste for sharper flavours. They're certainly not like quince which are only edible when both cooked and sweetened.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Isaaczohar (talk • contribs) 23:47, 27 August 2012 (UTC) 
I agree, Blackcurrents are sweet, once ripe, however not sure sweet would be the best word, they are not bitter like grapefruit or lemon, I do not think "woody" would be appropiate, once grown properly they are the opposite. Acidic I feel best describes the taste.
In my experience, the American replacement for blackcurrant is more frequently (red) cherry rather than grape.  Cherry flavored sweets are unheard of in Britain -- and many samplers believe the flavoring to be almond instead of cherry.  Go figure. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.30.73.42 (talk • contribs) 

"Cherry flavored sweets are unheard of in Britain" - that's rubbish. Bassett's Cherry Drops and Cherry flavoured Tunes spring to mind. Jooler 22:22, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

No mention of Tea? I personally enjoy Blackcurrant as tea (I'm an American, it's hard to get blackcurrant; Also, I'm not sure if it's "normal" tea leaves treated with Blackcurrant concentrate, or Blackcurrant leaves). You end up with a wonderfully fruity, heavy tea, which is amazing when concentrated and drunk cold. 66.215.12.70 (talk) 07:42, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

PAUL144, why don't you want words such as "antioxidants" or "superfruit" to be associated with blackcurrant. I backed up both statements with necessary sources and now you're starting a reverting war. If you don't show your arguments in a reasonable time, I'll bring back those informations. I think we're supposed to work collectively - not treat an article like a personal playground. 02:47, 6 November 2008 78.131.137.50 

Your edits do not make the article better. Antioxidant phytochemicals are sufficiently addressed and blackcurrant does not have sufficient market size to qualify as a superfruit. --Paul144 (talk) 03:06, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
Your statement above is very vague. How doesn't my edit make the article better?
1) I provided an information on latest study by dr Derek Steward from Scottish Crop Research Institute who discovered last year that blackcurrant contains higher level of antioxidants than 20 other fruits knowns for its antioxidant capacity. After your changes the section "Nutritients and phytochemicals" doesn't even include a word "antioxidant"(!).
2) I also provided a link to show that blackcurrants are regionally marketed as superfruits to make an average reader unfamiliar with biochemistry realise how healthy blackcurrants are.  Then you stated that "blackcurrant does not have sufficient market size to qualify as a superfruit" which sounds very discretionary.
All in all, I'm not sure if you intend to seek compromise but please, at least don't put me off with sth like "Your changes are bad, my changes are good"  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.131.137.50 (talk) 03:43, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
1) "The fruit has an extraordinarily high vitamin C content (302% of the Daily Value per 100g, table)" and "Other phytochemicals in the fruit (polyphenols/anthocyanins) have been demonstrated in laboratory experiments with potential to inhibit inflammation mechanisms" -- these are statements about antioxidant strength and phytochemicals that may have antioxidant value in vivo. However, there exists no scientific evidence that polyphenols actually have antioxidant activity in the human body so your statement makes an emphasis that cannot be documented.
2) I used your reference about superfruits to add this sentence to the section on Culinary uses, "Japan imports $3.6 million in New Zealand blackcurrants for uses as dietary supplements, snacks, functional food products and as quick-frozen (IQF) produce for culinary production as jams, jellies or preserves.[11]"
Wikipedia is an open forum where refinement of an article by frequent editing is healthy and expected. If you have a well-written valid statement supported by fact, it will likely survive. If it doesn't, then let it go without confrontation like you've been doing with most of your edits.--Paul144 (talk) 12:01, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
ad1) I haven't written anything about polyphenols. I provided an information on latest study by dr Derek Steward from Scottish Crop Research Institute who discovered last year that blackcurrant contains higher level of antioxidants than 20 other fruits knowns for its antioxidant capacity. If You have objections to the methodology of this particular study, provide references. Otherwise your statements are an original research.
ad2) This one of your edits "Japan imports (...) blackcurrants for uses as dietary supplements, snacks, functional food products and as quick-frozen (IQF) produce for culinary production as jams, jellies or preserves." applies for almost any country. The original aim of this [4] reference was to show an average reader unfamiliar with biochemistry realise how healthy blackcurrants are.  Then you stated that "blackcurrant does not have sufficient market size to qualify as a superfruit" which sounds very discretionary. Who said "superfruits" can't be regional? Again, provide a reference if you personally disagree with the reference I provided.
...And please spare me those slogans. You write this but do the contrary. Use Your energy on adressing specific arguments. I'm going to wait again to show my good faith.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.131.137.50 (talk) 06:42, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
1) Unfortunately, you seem to not know that the antioxidants Dr. Stewart describes are polyphenols. See Article reference 8. Antioxidant capacity demonstrated in vitro has no relevance to in vivo functions. No role has been scientifically proved for blackcurrant antioxidants in vivo.
2) The health value of a fruit is represented by its nutrient content which is already displayed in the table on the article page. "Superfruit" is only a marketing term that to date is established mainly on whether a fruit product has gone mainstream, something not achieved by blackcurrant products.--Paul144 (talk) 14:11, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
BLACKCURRANT- Blackcurrant is a tasty berry. It is made into lots of things, jams and juice, if you have the juice IT IS VERY STRONG. So i would advise pouring a little of blackcurrant juice and more water that way you could save money to.

Hello!
I really do not understand this zeal of some editors to specify the names of plants in English wikipedia articles in other languages, too. There are English articles with French, German, Chinese or Hindu etc. names. Except some cases where etimology explanations are needed, it has no any sense to give here the names in other languages. Or if we give them in French, or Chinese, why not specify them also in Hungarian, Swahili, Tibetan, Japanese, Arabic, Swedish, etc.? Why apply any discrimination? And take care: there are thousands of spoken languages on Earth. Translations of plant names can be found by simply clicking the interwiki links, or consulting the Wiktionary. --Mazarin07 (talk) 23:32, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

what idiot made that law! cos it threatens an indosty this from a captisit country what a bunch of morons.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.222.227.22 (talk) 02:41, 7 February 2011 (UTC) 

describing the product Ribena as "universally sold" is ludicrous. the context indicates the product is better described as "sold in the UK  and some of it's former colonies."  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.238.163.222 (talk) 01:07, 22 May 2011 (UTC) 

I noticed that in (the NE of) Poland and the Baltic states a mid size supermarket usually carried liter cartons of pure (100%) blackcurrant juice. Probably meant for mixing, but the locals also drank it pure. I liked it too :-) 88.159.64.210 (talk) 15:27, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Blackcurrant/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: ColonelHenry (talk · contribs) 01:44, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
Looking forward to reviewing this article.--ColonelHenry (talk) 01:44, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for taking it on. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:21, 1 September 2013 (UTC)


### Initial comments
Typically, when I review an article I'll do a minor copyedit if it's just matters of commas or small rearrangements of a sentence, and any minor reorganization work. I see a few things ad incipit that I'd like to shift and revise. Just a few that I'll mention...and then I'll follow up with anything that needs major revision. Review/copyedit underway. --ColonelHenry (talk) 17:18, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

I didn't get into a nuts and bolts stylistic copyedit because I first focused on content issues.--ColonelHenry (talk) 18:27, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
Content discussion
Lede - per MOS, the lede needs to be expanded to include summaries of information in the article but not mentioned in the lede--like alcoholic beverages, medicinal usage, industrial uses
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:13, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
Clarify the discussion in the article's usage of "shrub" and "bush" -- in the US, those terms usually connote decorative trees used in landscaping and almost infrequently are used for commercially-cultivated fruit-bearing crops.
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:13, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
Description - could use more information about the plant physiology and morphology. Describe the flowers...male and female flowers on the same plant? sure, you mentioned petals, but there are more parts to the flower...more important ones, too, like pistils and stamens, and other flower physiology that goes into the pollination and fruit production.  How the seed develops, description.
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:17, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
Cultivation - there should be more discussion about growing conditions--growing days (typically 110), fertilizers (typically NPK of 10-10-10 here in NJ is recommended), macro and micronutrients that need to be in a soil profile, pesticides to be used or commonly used. You mention rootstock but neglect pollination--bees? by hand? self-pollinating?  In harvesting...define ripeness?  How much is produced a year (tons? dollar value) what countries/provinces/states produce the most (tons/dollar value)?  Per acre fruit production yields?  Costs to establish an orchard per acre? Costs to cultivate/harvest/produce/ship per acre? (these are things found in agricultural cooperative extension/research service crop production guides in the US).
"Manures and fertilzers" section added.  Pollination done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:17, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
RE: Cultivars I think a little discussion of how and why the major cultivars were developed...by whom? universities? agriculture extensions? farmers? companies?  How are some more cold-hardy than others?  How are some more disease-resistant or pest-resistant than others? Hardier rootstocks? Better fruit sets? Fruit yields?  That kind of comparison, that breadth of information, would be warranted here, per criteria 3a.  We have the what, but the how and why is missing.
USDA has a zonal cultivation map...how does blackcurrant fit into that rubric?
United States production and history...there is a lot more production in the US than is listed here...I'd check 2007 USDA Census of Agriculture for figures state by state, and notice that a lot more states' ag boards/cooperative extensions report black currant production (including in Alaska) than you listed in the article.
The USDA figures are for total currents and not just blackcurrants. They show 382 acres planted (253 acres harvested) with currants, and a smaller area of currants harvested in 2007 than 2002. The Alaska species is Ribes laxiflorum. I cannot find comprehensive information on which states still ban blackcurrants. Pennsylvania, for example, still bans them but apparently does not enforce the law. I have enlarged this section with some further information.Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:42, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
Uses
No mention of industrial uses in yellow, blue and violet dyes and textile production, how leaves are used to pack vegetables for transportation, or oil uses...see for more uses: [5]
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:13, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
I think more discussion on blackcurrant wines and liqueurs is warranted.
Excellent job on the nutritional information, although it needs more citations.
the medicinal uses needs to be expanded beyond just Austrian traditional medicine. There are mentions in English, Russian and Baltic sources regarding its role in peasant medicines that are not discussed.
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:17, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
More medicinal information, see: [6]
Citations I think this could be beefed up with more cited materials. In the US, land grant colleges and their agricultural research/extension services tend to publish extensive crop guides that provide a comprehensive discussion of cultivation and other information.  I'd recommend that some of the information be supported and expanded using information from these resources:
Virginia Cooperative Extension: Specialty Crop Profile: Ribes (Currants and Gooseberries) (from Virginia Tech)
Mid-Atlantic Berry Guide (from Penn State)
European Black Currant from UHawaii
several fruit articles (from Cornell Univ.)
several other US state universities, too.
Ribes Growers Guide 2013 from McGinnis Berry Crops
USDA Blackcurrant Plant Guide
This source is about the wild species Ribes americanum. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:17, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
External links the description by the link to for "Are They Currants or Raisins?" is too long...perhaps that is an argument that needs to be brought into the article's body.
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:17, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
Aesthetics
I think the article needs a thorough copyedit to improve the quality and flow of the prose before meeting the GA criteria...but in my estimation, a thorough copyedit should be done after the content issues are addressed and the article becomes more comprehensive.
REVIEW STATUS: GA nomination on hold (06SEPT2013)--ColonelHenry (talk) 18:35, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your detailed review. It will take me a bit of time to deal with the points you raise. (Unless I decide that your requirements are so numerous and specific that fulfilling them would be too exhausting.) Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:13, 7 September 2013 (UTC)


### Final review
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose is clear and concise, without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors: 
Prose is clear and concise, no spelling or grammatical problems, no indications of or evidence of copyright violations.
B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists: 
Complies generally with the MOS, and specifically with the five MOS guidelines mentioned in the GA criteria
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. Has an appropriate reference section: 
contains a list of references, complies with layout style for references
B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary: 
adequately formatted in-line citations from reliable sources.
C. No original research: 
no evidence of or indication of original research.
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects: 
sufficiently covers all aspects regarding blackcurrant, their morphology and taxonomy, cultivation, nutritionaly content, and usage.
B. Focused: 
article adequately balances informative detail with summary style.
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias: 
no evidence of or indication of any POV or bias, article is adequately neutral.
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc: 
no evidence of or indication of any edit war or content disputes.
Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content: 
images have appropriate copyright and licensing tags.
B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions: 
images are relevant to the article's subject and are adequately captioned.
Overall:
Pass or Fail: 
Excellent and delicious article on a much neglected fruit...often made me yearn to quench my thirst with a Cider and Black.
Thank you for the review. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 20:11, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Great work on this article in general- may I just question the 'essential nutrients' addition you've just made?  The info is almost exactly the same as for most plants- so I suggest that preferably, it doesn't deserve space in the blackcurrant article, or less preferably, at least it should be mentioned that blackcurrants are like pretty much all plants.
Gravuritas (talk) 16:32, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

If you look at the GA review above, you will see that information on the nutrients required by this fruit was one of the things that the reviewer wished me to add. I am working rather piecemeal through his comments. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:09, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

I was sorry to see this comment deleted- it is one of the most notable/ unusual things about blackcurrant cultivation and the article is the poorer for its absence.  Having seen the amount of good work that Cwmhiraeth has put in to the article I don't wish to assert my view strongly- it's just a suggestion.
Gravuritas (talk) 20:48, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

I have replaced it. The reason for the alterations I made to the Cultivation section can be seen here. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:07, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

As of this writing, the second paragraph mentions a common disease of blackcurrants called reversion which is attributed to the Blackcurrant Gall Mite. The term reversion is linked to the page Sport_(botany) which, confusingly, happens to be another, although quite correct, botanical meaning for the term reversion. In other words, there are two botanical meanings to the term reversion and the article is pointing to the wrong one, so I've unlinked the word in the article from the wrong definition and pointed it to Cecidophyopsis_ribis#Blackcurrant_reversion_disease instead. --79.76.115.13 (talk) 07:12, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

The article currently says 'up to 1cm in diameter' for the fruit, but this
http://www.gardenfocused.co.uk/fruitarticles/blackcurrants/variety-big-ben.php
says for a particular variety that it has an average weight of 2.3g, which clearly corresponds to a larger diameter than 1cm.
Anyone got a source which actually quotes the diameter of Big Ben?
Gravuritas (talk) 10:40, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

This source says up to 2.9 g. Assuming the density is the same as water, i.e. 1 g/cm3, that would mean a diameter of about 1.7 cm. Um... Are 'Big Ben' blackcurrants really 0.7 in across? Peter coxhead (talk) 14:29, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
[7] agrees, and that's the RHS.  [8] says >2g.  Density approx. equal to water is correct, from previous jam-making experience.  Haven't grown or seen them myself, but I don't think there can be any doubt.  Unfortunately all the sources quote weight, and I think diameter is much more meaningful to the general WP reader.
Gravuritas (talk) 15:21, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
Well, I went into my garden and picked the twenty largest blackcurrants I could find. Their total weight was forty grams and the diameter of each was approximately one centimetre (five in a row came to five centimetres). Cwmhiraeth (talk) 17:01, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
@Cwmhiraeth: that's also the size of those I looked at, presumably not 'Big Ben'. I didn't weigh them – not quite ready to pick here yet. However, if their diameter is about 1 cm, their volume should be about 0.5 cm3 (π*d3/6). So a weight of 2 g each seems out of line. Peter coxhead (talk) 18:14, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
I have replaced the dead RHS reference at the end of the paragraph; the size of the fruit depends on the variety and growing conditions so I have removed mention of the diameter. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:34, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
Thanks: all very puzzling
Theoretical weight	weight at various densities		
dia cm	rad cm	vol ml	dens=1	dens=2	dens=3
1	0.50	0.393	0.52	1.05	1.57
1.1	0.55	0.523	0.70	1.39	2.09
1.2	0.60	0.679	0.90	1.81	2.71
1.3	0.65	0.863	1.15	2.30	3.45
1.4	0.70	1.078	1.44	2.87	4.31
1.5	0.75	1.325	1.77	3.53	5.30
(sorry-formatting may have gone to pot but I hope that's clear)
Gravuritas (talk) 18:57, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Is "blackcurrant" instead of "black currant" an ENGVAR thing? It looks strange to me as an American, but I'd assumed it was UK English. But I noticed that the common name adopted by the Botanical Society of the British Isles is "Black Currant". The RHS however seems to favor "blackcurrant". From 1800-1960 in Google NGrams], "black currant" has predominated, but "blackcurrant" started taking off around 1940. In recent years both terms have been close, going back and forth for which is most common. Redcurrant is a similar situation, rising in popularity since 1960, but it's not yet managed to overtake "red currant". And the article for white currant includes a space in the title. Plantdrew (talk) 22:30, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps because other berries were one word before the 1800s? A cousin Ribes berry, goose berry vs. gooseberry? Black berry vs. blackberry. An etymology riddle wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma. --Zefr (talk) 00:51, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
It's certainly odd, because I would, without thinking, write "blackcurrant" but "red currant" and "white currant". All I can offer is that blackcurrants are more common than the others. It may also have something to do with the popularity of Ribena; I see that even on the American Amazon website here, the drink is called "blackcurrant concentrate" not "black currant concentrate". Peter coxhead (talk) 11:33, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
Good thought, Peter. Ribena might very well have something to do with it. The introduction of Ribena does match the time frame when "blackcurrant" started taking off. Plantdrew (talk) 17:17, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Blackcurrant. 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/20120926145635/http://www.ars-grin.gov/cor/ribes/ribsymp/stem6.html to http://www.ars-grin.gov/cor/ribes/ribsymp/stem6.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:20, 30 September 2017 (UTC)