Talk:Beverly Bivens/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Judith Durham?

I'm rather doubtful about the reference to Judith Durham (another fine vocalist). She doesn't quite fit the mould, although the Seekers could be described rather loosely as "folk rock". Having moved from Australia, the Seekers were already established in Britain by the time that We Five came to notice and in fact We Five barely penetrated the UK. They probably owed more to groups like the Springfields (and, indeed, Tom Springfield wrote songs for them) and Peter, Paul & Mary. The link seems tenuous. IXIA 07:27, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Have inserted a new reference that covers the point above. IXIA 20:14, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Bev Bivens - San Francisco 1965.JPG

Image:Bev Bivens - San Francisco 1965.JPG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

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

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

BetacommandBot 03:00, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:We Five - Make Someone Happy 1967.JPG

Image:We Five - Make Someone Happy 1967.JPG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

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

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

BetacommandBot (talk) 21:22, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:WeFive.jpg

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

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

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

BetacommandBot (talk) 03:16, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Article Needs Work

Does anyone else think this article carries an ever so slightly crazed, obsessive tone? It is full of fanciful musings, digressions, speculations that shouldn't really have a place in an encyclopedia article. I mean, look at some of the footnotes for goodness sakes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.117.29.90 (talk) 18:14, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't know if this articls is "crazed" or "obsessive" but it does need work. It has a lot of irrelevant stuff, as well as some awkward writing. I have seen much worse articles— like the main We Five article which is almost unreadable. The reason I wandered over to this article was because I wanted to find out the date of her death... which hasn't happened yet, happily. I was one of those who had heard that she died young. The story arc of her life should be straightforward enough: she was in a folk-rock band with some friends, they were pretty good, she got tired of the band and left, met an older jazz musician, and soon began raising a family and living quietly in Berkeley, California. She is exceptional because the band was a memorable one hit wonder and because she was strikingly beautiful. I don't know how hard it would be to fix the article. Timothy Horrigan (talk) 13:57, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I totally think there are stylistic problems, and in particular, a lot of problems with digression and speculation. Overall, its a well-researched article that's in need of a good copy edit. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 22:48, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I think the "problems" are a bit overstated. It is almost certainly the most detailed article about her in existence. So, any changes should be undertaken with care. LymeRegis (talk) 20:46, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

A False Positive

I wasted some time poking around Google looking to see if Beverly Bivens Marshall, in her post-We Five persona as an East Bay housewife, had left any net droppings. I found some promising news stories dated around 2005 which referred to "Beverly Marshall", Finance Director of the Berkeley Public Library. (There was a local uproar around that time over a plan to put RFID tags on library books.) But it turns out that this was a false positive: the news stories actually involved a younger woman (actually named Beverli Marshall with an "i" rather than "y" at the end of "Beverli"), who is now an assistant city manager in nearby Orinda, California. Timothy Horrigan (talk) 15:54, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Tagging for tone

I see someone has recently tagged this article based on a few comments made four years ago. Yet so far as I am aware it has been revised quite significantly since then. Still needed therefore? BONNUIT (talk) 10:47, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I think it's time the tagged was removed. IXIA (talk) 12:06, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Beverly Bivens. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 18 January 2022).

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) 06:14, 1 November 2016 (UTC)