# Talk:Cowboys & Aliens

The content is identical to the synopsis on the DreamWorks site. rhyre (talk) 14:24, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Tagged. Henrymrx (t·c) 17:27, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Is it fair to say that the movie is based on the graphic novel, just because it was released earlier? The only reason the graphic novel was made is because the movie got stuck in development. The graphic novel is basically based on the then in limbo movie, with this movie being a new script based on the original movie concept. Xeworlebi (talk) 19:43, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I considered this issue. The official website says: "The script for Cowboys & Aliens is by Star Trek's Alex Kurtzman & Roberto Orci and Damon Lindelof (television's Lost), based on Platinum Studios' graphic novel created by Scott Mitchell Rosenberg." Wildroot (talk) 06:04, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

I realize the section is sourced, but it's poorly written. Describing the entirety of every trailer seems a little excessive. --Boycool (talk) 20:04, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree that the level of detail in the "Marketing" section is indiscriminate. A "Marketing" section should be more than just describing the contents of trailers, TV spots, radio ads, and posters. The commentary from secondary sources is not enough to justify the amount of detail. This is a good source to use more, but the section is swamped with needless detail. We need to write encyclopedic articles from a historical perspective, meaning that we have to consider the long-term viability of articles' content. The level of detail indicates a pre-release mentality where we know nothing, where when the film comes out (and will be in public forever), such details matter less. It should focus primarily on commentary with select use of detail to clarify certain elements. I would especially encourage addressing this section before considering the article for Good Article status. Erik (talk | contribs) 13:33, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
It is also worth reading Wikipedia:Proseline. The section needs to be an actual summary about the film's marketing, not a timeline lined with indiscriminately described events. Erik (talk | contribs) 13:39, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
Here's another good source to use: Question for Big Film: It’s Not a Comedy? Erik (talk | contribs) 13:47, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
I've revised the section using the two sources above. Erik (talk | contribs) 18:08, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
And Altitude has reverted it back to old, excessive version. --Boycool (talk) 22:28, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
I notified other editors at WT:FILM about the dispute. Do you think there is anything from Altitude's write-up to combine with mine? Or any other preferences you have about covering the film's marketing? Erik (talk | contribs) 22:41, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
I just think it's a little excessive to give a play-by-play for every new trailer. It's hardly encyclopedic, and most of the information will soon be in the plot (and redundant in the marketing) anyway. --Boycool (talk) 22:44, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
I don't agree with the long version explaining every clip in detail.  It's beyond excessive and will become obsolete once the plot is written.  I don't agree with telling the readers when a trailer is release and what film it was attached too.  It's kind of like advertising.  Same goes for the posters. Why are we comparing the international poster to the US poster? Is it that significant and do reliable sources go into detail about these posters and compare them?   "On May 24, 2011, the second official TV spot was released. It focused on Lonergan and mostly featured action sequences.[84] Ella asked Lonergan in a saloon: "Where'd you get your bracelet?""  Is that really necessary?  This is the sort of text you would find on Wikia or a forum...   —Mike Allen  22:50, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
An editor at WT:FILM said this about the section and the write-ups. Erik (talk | contribs) 23:14, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
Just at a glance, it seems pretty excessive. Dayewalker (talk) 21:00, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
Altitude2010 (talk · contribs) was reported at WP:ANI#Cowboys & Aliens. An admin warned him not to edit war. Can another editor please restore the concise consensus-supported writeup? I'd rather not make it seem that it is just about me and him. Erik (talk | contribs) 21:40, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

I suggest the removal of entire "Marketing" section as unencyclopedic, irrelevant and overly detailed. I'm not aware of any other movie described on Wikipedia that has an entire section of the article dedicated to its marketing. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 23:27, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
Nearly every article about a summer blockbuster does. --Boycool (talk) 23:29, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
Alan, marketing is part of a film's background. In many cases, it will be standard fare with trailers and posters. We do not need "Marketing" sections for these, which is why they are not commonplace. In some cases, the marketing is unique enough to be covered by secondary sources. For example, there is Valkyrie (film)#Marketing, which covers the history of the studio's attempt to market the film. In this film's case, I do not consider the section complete. I think it would be better to remove the media's visit, Ford at Comic Con, and the mobile video game. That would leave three well-sourced paragraphs. We have guidelines on such sections too: MOS:FILM#Marketing. Erik (talk | contribs) 23:44, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
Not being a film buff, I stand corrected. That said, I'm still not convinced that the level of detail Altitude is trying to include is warranted. With the content creep that typically occurs during editing of articles aspiring to GA or FA status, the Marketing section would threaten to overrun the Plot section in both size and content detail. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 23:56, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
Altitude2010 (talk · contribs) provided a shorter draft, but it still engages in proseline. He said this on the talk page. I still prefer my draft, obviously, since it opens with an overview and does not just mention posters and trailers as they appear. It also talked about the marketing intent of the studio. In his draft, the websites used to describe the details are not very reliable in the sense that any blogger can say, "Oh, it looks like this and that!" The information in my draft came from reliable sources and provided more valuable commentary than comparing posters (similar "except [for] the angle and the color scheme"). What do others think? Erik (talk | contribs) 11:57, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Altitude2010 has been blocked for a week. I still think the "Marketing" section can be improved. There is this press release about JD Motorsports (NASCAR) partnering with the film. The press release has been reported by some movie websites, but they do not seem reliable. I am hoping for a secondary source, but it does not mean we cannot reference the press release. We just have to keep the language neutral and straightforward. I personally find it an interesting fact to mention in the section. Others' thoughts? Erik (talk | contribs) 16:03, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Just a random comment after passing by ANI: Erik, your version could do with a little tightening (the Harrison Ford sentences at Comic-Con, for instance), but it's pretty clear to me that Altitude's version is unacceptable in tone and excessive amount of detail. I'm writing this also to make it clear that there is support for one version over the other. Good luck, Drmies (talk) 18:12, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for your feedback! I've tried to merge the passages you mentioned. I'm not fully sure if the order of sentences and details work best, so feel free to edit or make suggestions. Erik (talk | contribs) 18:24, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

The article has been primarily edited by Altitude2010 (talk · contribs), and I am concerned that his edits fail to make the article encyclopedic. Here are a list of my concerns:

The "Plot" section seems to be plagiarized from other websites; just Google any sentence from it.
The "Development" subsection is full of proseline.
The "Story" and "Science fiction Western" subsections are unconventional sections that have extensive quoting. The sections should be merged elsewhere where the elements are useful.
There are too many quotes throughout the article body; they should be rewritten into our own words or removed.
I plan to clean up the article soon but am concerned that there will be similar resistance from the primary contributor like with the "Marketing" section. I ask other editors to indicate what they think should be cleaned up, if anything. Erik (talk | contribs) 14:31, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

I concur. I've looked over this article and it needs a complete overhaul. The entire page looks like an IMDb trivia section (e.g., Event A happened, Event B happened, etc.). That is not how articles are supposed to be written. I will pass on any "Plot" adjustments until after I see the film, but I'd be happy to help you work through section by section to see where best to correct things.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 15:47, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
What do you think should be done in terms of casting? We have some casting information in both "Cast" and "Development" that could be combined. I don't think we have to talk about when certain actors were cast (since it didn't affect the pacing of the production), and we could do more of an overview in "Cast" itself. What about having a simple cast list followed by a couple of paragraphs talking about people like Craig, Ford, Rockwell, and Wilde? Erik (talk | contribs) 16:15, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
If there is a consensus that differs from your opinion and you are the only one with the minority viewpoint are you going to follow Wikipedia policy or repeat your past mistakes? Please clarify your current position as I don't want to waste my time if you haven't figured out how to handle it when you're in the minority. Many thanks on all your excellent contributions to film articles many of which are not bad!!! --Ring Cinema (talk) 19:04, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
I would follow the consensus that other editors form. For example, I wanted to do a "See also" section at Fight Club (film) listing "similar works" from Allmovie as a matter of cross-navigation, but most editors weren't interested. I was disappointed but accepted the consensus. If you have any thoughts about presenting casting information in this article, feel free to share. I think we can agree that at least some change is needed here? Erik (talk | contribs) 19:21, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Erik, I agree that it needs to be put together. I don't know if that means a cast list of a "Casting" section. You know I'm not one for lists that just restate plot information. So, I'll defer to you (or the consensus of those that edit this page regularly) as to which to do, but it certainly needs to all be in one place. There is no point to have 2 separate cast related sections.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 19:30, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Something that's always bothered me about this article is that every quote is preceded by a colon rather than a comma. I changed it at one point, but Altitude reverted it (manually, I think), saying that colons are used for long quotations. However, this article uses it for every quotation, including those like the one from Jon Favreau in "Cast", which consists of one sentence. Also, if this is such an official grammatical rule, why is this article the only one on Wikipedia that follows it? --Boycool (talk) 20:05, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

There is no such rule, certainly not a grammatical rule (these are really behavioral rules, so to speak). Colons are sometimes used if what precedes it is an independent clause, but even there commas are used. I wonder if the WP:Manual of Style has a note on it--I doubt it, frankly, but it would be useful to look at. Drmies (talk) 20:20, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
For one thing, there are a lot of quotes used in the article body, and it should not be that way. I think that we could convert a lot of quotes into prose of our own words. I do agree that the colon is used for longer quotations. I've used them to precede a quote within "blockquote" HTML tags. I agree that they should not dominate all of the articles' quotes, though. I'm fine with switching to commas, but we really should look at the longer quotes. We're quoting the filmmakers a lot before we even know how the film is going to be received. If we do quote, we should make sure it is descriptive (perhaps like at Priest) and that it's not like, "My own idea is amazing!" Erik (talk | contribs) 20:24, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
I agree there are way too many quotes in here. Encyclopedic articles don't need that. Drmies (talk) 20:29, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Any ideas on what to do with "Science fiction Western"? I think it has good content, but it is out of place at the end of the "Production" section. I think parts of it could be transplanted into the other subsections. For example, we could talk about the director's and writers' intents shortly after they came on board ("Development"), and we could talk about Craig riding on a horse and the CG aliens in "Filming". Erik (talk | contribs) 20:41, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

I think the [sub]section should be retitled "Genre", "Themes", or something along those lines. --Boycool (talk) 00:46, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
I will give that a try. I think that there are statements that are related to production, but there are others that do not belong. Erik (talk | contribs) 15:38, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Boycool, how does it look now? Any suggestions? The "Cast" section still needs to be tightened up, and I still need to work on "Writing", "Filming", and "Design and effects". Erik (talk | contribs) 17:11, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
The content looks good, but I would suggest putting "Themes" after "Cast" or "Production". --Boycool (talk) 03:04, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
Now moved after both. For "Production", I am thinking about changing "Design and effects" to just "Visual effects" because I think that there will be extensive coverage about them, probably at awn.com or fxguide.com and most likely at Cinefex (which will not be online). I can try to mention the production designer in "Filming" instead. Erik (talk | contribs) 18:43, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
I think that would be good. I prefer "Visual effects" because it's a much more concise way of saying the same thing.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 19:16, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
I'd just like to say I'm not a fan of the current cast section. The information about the different actors and characters should be in the cast list, not put in a jumbled mess beneath in. Perhaps even ditch the bullet format like at Scream (film). --Boycool (talk) 21:11, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

There are quite a few ways to approach the "Cast" section. I haven't really finished tying together all the prose there. For example, I would trim the Ford paragraph further, and I would try to put together one paragraph covering Wilde, Rockwell, and Favreau (unless there's more content about each one). My thinking is to have a cast list followed by prose focusing on the main cast members since a minority of them actually have coverage from secondary sources. That way, there would not be a staggered impression where the bulleted paragraphs get smaller until there are just simple bulleted items. Would the list-then-prose approach work if the paragraphs were tightened up? Or would you still prefer the role-specific passages right next to the names? Erik (talk | contribs) 01:08, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
For convenience, we should probably keep the bullet list in "Cast", but maybe the prose should be under "Casting". --Boycool (talk) 01:23, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
That could indeed work better. I moved the prose from "Production" to "Cast" before because there were two separated sets of prose and because the "Development" subsection was clogged at the time. I think I see an opportunity to weave the commentary about the actors with the time they joined the project. Erik (talk | contribs) 01:30, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
That's worked pretty well for The Expendables (2010 film) (I'm sure there's a better example, but that's just the first one that comes to mind). --Boycool (talk) 01:38, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
This looks a lot better to me. Thanks. --Boycool (talk) 01:40, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

I think that for upcoming films, if their articles are referencing an official synopsis released by the studio, the section heading should be "Synopsis". A synopsis is defined as a brief plot summary, and it will naturally lack spoilers. When the film is released, a not-so-brief plot summary can replace the synopsis and rename the section as "Plot or "Plot summary". It is a threshold to cross when the film is released, and the scope of the section is redefined because a fuller summary is verifiable by audiences. What do others prefer? Erik (talk | contribs) 23:20, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Seriously, I don't think this makes a difference. 99.99% of readers couldn't care less. I've self-reverted out of deference to you, but my personal preferences remains "plot", not "synopsis", for articles about films that aren't documentaries. Consistency is more important than other considerations. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 03:59, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
I don't completely disagree with you, but I think that a section with three sentences is different from one with up to 700 words. Sometimes if there's no official synopsis for an upcoming film, the section references one of the earlier articles and is titled "Premise". I don't think both of these are inconsistent; they say what the film is about but are far more concise. They're basically safe for reading—one can learn what the film is about without being spoiled, especially with adapted works like Life of Pi (film). I think "Synopsis" in particular reflects a rewrite of the studio's official synopsis because as development goes on for some upcoming films, details will change. The story could be different from when the film was first announced. (For example, Downey Jr. in 2008 had joined as Zeke Jackson, but that character name no longer exists with the upcoming film.) All my reasons are relatively minor, but I think together they provide a basis for defining the section accurately. After all, Wikipedia is dynamic as section headings are renamed or formed or removed with the coverage that exists for a given topic. Erik (talk | contribs) 11:33, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

We could use a picture of Plaza Blanca, or "The White Place", in the article. On Flickr, there are these images. If we can ask the copyright holder to release them under the proper CC licensing, we can use it in the article and perhaps others. Erik (talk | contribs) 17:25, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I think we should use an image. It would provide context and it would also be good when this article gets nominated for good article or featured article down the line. --Boycool (talk) 03:06, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

I think the following passage

When asked about how the film was developing, Rosenberg stated, "It's incredible. Sometimes it's like seeing exactly what was going through my head when I first had that spark in my head as a kid. Jon Favreau's bringing his own talent and vision with the adaptation, but at the same time it remains true to what I was really trying to get at in the original story."
should be kept in one form or another. Comments on how the film matches the original author's vision from the original author's mouth seem perfectly appropriate to the film's article. Perhaps it could be summarized and merged somewhere else in the prose rather than just removing it outright? --Fru1tbat (talk) 14:04, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps it could be in one of those blue quotebox thingies. --Boycool (talk) 14:10, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I'm wary of quotes like these because it sounds like fluffing (e.g., "It's incredible"). If you really want to include it, I would not quote directly. I would minimize the tone by saying that Rosenberg approved of how Favreau combined the original story with his own ideas. Would you want to do that? I'm not sure where it could be transplanted. Erik (talk | contribs) 14:11, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
You're right about "it's incredible" sounding very fluffy, but what about something like "In interviews, Rosenberg has indicated he is pleased with Favreau's adaptation of his work."? That doesn't sound quite right, but it's close, and I do think it's worth noting (just as I would be in favor of mentioning that an author has distanced himself from a particular work, were that the case). As for where it could go... I would put it under either "Writing" or "Design and effects", probably. It's not a perfect fit, but it's better there than anywhere else (and I imagine that as the article is expanded, it will eventually fit better somewhere else, perhaps Reception, or something like that). --Fru1tbat (talk) 14:26, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

The Los Angeles Times has a pretty lengthy article about this film here. Erik (talk | contribs) 16:55, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

I found production notes on the film that may prove helpful in developing the article.Here is the link in PDF format. (SuperSonic2000 (talk) 06:44, 23 July 2011 (UTC))

I removed this section, because it is only 1 review that is cited and that is not the critical reception but one persons POV. re-add section when there are some more critics out with their reviews! noclador (talk) 02:13, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Do not do this again.  It's the ONLY review, as more come, more will be added.  It is not one persons POV, its a professional reviewers critique of the film.  There is no limitation on how many reviews you require before you can start a section.  Darkwarriorblake (talk) 07:34, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
All critics have a POV of a film, that's why they are called film critics. It's their job. LOL —Mike Allen  09:15, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
Well you know what I mean.  We normally refer to POV on here as someone interjecting their opinion of what happened.  This is a professional reviewer giving his POV/Review of a film.  That it was the only one at the time/now isn't my fault but it still shouldn't just be blanked.  Darkwarriorblake (talk) 09:26, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
I hate Wikipedia's non-existent thread system.  I thought by indenting the same as you it means I am not replying to you? :-\  I was replying to Noclador. —Mike Allen  11:18, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
Oh, I didn't know that's how it worked.  Well I didn't think you were bullying me or anything if that's what you're worried about.  Just took it as joking.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 11:22, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

There is no such thing as a professional film critic, in the normal sense of the world "professional".  That would imply that they have a degree of some sort in "film criticism", which frankly is just a silly concept.  They only give opinions, nothing more.  The person who cuts my yard is then also a "professional grass artist".  Right?  Right.  Let's drop the pretense here folks.  Film critics are just people paid to give an opinion.  Not a "better" or more "professional" opinion.  It's just a job they got, somehow.  But not because they have a degree in the field and have been through some form of formal certification process.  The title means nothing.  Therefore, each opinion is worth the same as any other.  Therefore, the original comment stands on its own merit.  I'm not changing anything, but the original comment is correct.  A single "review" should never be allowed for that reason. 98.194.39.86 (talk) 04:00, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

A "profession" is someone's main paid occupation. Someone whose main paid profession is film criticism is a "professional film critic".
Calling someone who mows lawns for a living a "professional grass artist" would attract derision not for calling a profession a "profession", but for calling mowing lawns "grass artistry". - SummerPhDv2.0 13:38, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Jon Favreau decided to have a viral advertisement project where he had the popular Youtuber FreddieW create his own video inspired by the film, about a week prior to the release of the video. The actual video is here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=71YsRO6G7Ks
98.231.11.167 (talk) 23:14, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

When asked by Howard Stern if the film cost $180 million to make, Jon said that was not true and that the budget was $163 million (at 1:40), however the Howard Stern website says $153 million.[1]  How do we source this? Mercury News says $180 million.[2].  The Los Angeles Times did not give a figure in its weekly Movie Projector write-up. [3]—Mike Allen  03:37, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

There was a story on Hollywood Reporter yesterday that cited 163 million.  Here (http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/box-office-preview-cowboys-aliens-216680)Darkwarriorblake (talk) 10:53, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
Added. Thanks! —Mike Allen  16:14, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Is it a "bracelet" or a "wristband" or a "gauntlet weapon" or what?  We need to be consistent.
Also, the rock formations at the "final battle" site look an awful lot like the Chiricahua National Monument, and I think the generic "Indians" were referred to as Chiricahua Apaches.  Did anybody else catch that? Paulburnett (talk) 00:24, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

I'd have said bracelet.  Wristband doesn't sound right at all, I'm sure others have referred to it as bracelet.  And the official cast refers to the character as "Chiricahua Apache chief, Black Knife" in the cast section. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 00:29, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

These are two good sources to use in the "Design and effects" section: 1, 2. I would add them myself, but I kinda screwed up my left arm last night. --Boycool (talk) 14:21, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Belay that, I grew impatient. --Boycool (talk) 17:11, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't think that movie was a huge box-office bomb, but not successful in the box office either. What do you think? BattleshipMan (talk) 22:05, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Cowboys & Aliens/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: MathewTownsend (talk · contribs) 14:40, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
Will start this review shortly.  MathewTownsend (talk) 14:40, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
GA review-see WP:WIAGA for  criteria (and here for what they are not)

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose: clear and concise, correct spelling and grammar:
Explain what Anamorphic format means in the context of this article
Done. --Boycool (talk) 03:53, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
"received a theatrical release" - clumsy wording
Fixed. --Boycool (talk) 03:53, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
Three sentences in a row starting with "The film" - "The film, though having grossed its budget back, is considered to be a financial disappointment, taking $174.8 million in box office receipts on a $163 million budget. The film received mixed reviews, with critics generally praising its acting but critical of its blend of the Western and science fiction genres. The film was released on DVD and Blu-ray disc on December 6, 2011." - Please vary wording so as not to be monotonous.
Fixed. --Boycool (talk) 03:53, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
Too many short, choppy paragraphs, especially in "Development and casting"
B. Complies with  MoS for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation: 
All quotes, even in the lede must be directly cited.
Done. --Boycool (talk) 03:53, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
Should not be in the lede: "The film was released on DVD and Blu-ray disc on December 6, 2011." - it's a detail and the lede is supposed to be a summary of the most important elements of the article.
Omitted. --Boycool (talk) 03:53, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
That section also contains a very large quote. Is there a way to paraphrase some of it? It is too long.
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. Provides references to all sources: 
Please add (subscription required) to those citations applicable
Provide sources directly after all quotes.
Done. --Boycool (talk) 03:53, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
Otherwise, the article looks well referenced.
B. Provides in-line citations from reliable sources where necessary: 
ILM was careful to make the creatures "cool and captivating". - needs citation
Done. --Boycool (talk) 03:53, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
The second to last paragraph in "Design and effects" only has one citation, and that is after the ending quote. Is that citation meant to cover the whole paragraph?
Yes it is. --Boycool (talk) 03:53, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
"Critical reception" contains many uncited quotes.
C. No original research: 

Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Main aspects are addressed: 

B. Remains focused: 

Does it follow the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias: 

Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc: 

Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales: 

B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions: 

Overall:
Pass or Fail: 

I may add other comments as I spot them. Meanwhile I'll put this on hold to give you a chance to start work.
ok, a few minor things:
I don't understand what this means: "It's very easy to just cut the string and then all of a sudden the action starts and you're in Independence Day." - cut the string? Unfortunately I couldn't acces the MNBC site that references the quote. (It freezes my browser.)
I made a some edits that you are free to change if they are faulty.[4], plus some previous ones with other editors intervening.
Anyway, these are minor and don't prevent the article from passing.  MathewTownsend (talk) 19:28, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
Reevaluation after fixes

1. Well written?:  Pass
2. Factually accurate?:  Pass
3. Broad in coverage?:  Pass
4. Neutral point of view?:  Pass
5. Article stability?:  Pass
6. Images?:  Pass
Congratulations! A very interesting description of the film. Makes me want to see it!  MathewTownsend (talk) 19:31, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

...in the script? "The aliens ... are ... mining gold to power their machines." How does one use gold as a power source? WilliamSommerwerck (talk) 14:43, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

It's in the movie.  MisterShiney ✉  14:48, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
No it isn't - all they say is "it's as rare to them as it is to you" . . .  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.111.3.17 (talk) 22:38, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

This article has a picture of Indiana Jones' fedora why exactly? 82.26.78.212 (talk) 13:05, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
Nothing found at posted link. I'm sorry, but the picture comes across as a little fan-boyish. Yes, we get that Harrison Ford also played Indiana Jones in a different movie franchise and wore a different hat. Is this photo really anything more than trivia crow-barred in at the flimsiest excuse?82.26.78.212 (talk) 19:49, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
Still in the article and still a weird choice. Although the nearby article text does explain that the filmmakers did not want to give Ford a hat that would remind audiences of Indiana Jones, but that is not a good reason to include a picture of a hat that is not used in this film. -- 109.77.192.162 (talk) 19:09, 29 August 2020 (UTC)