Talk:Independence Day (1996 film)/GA1

GA Review
Passed on 6 September 2008 at 15:36(UTC) Cheers, (the reviewer)  -talk- the_ed17  -contribs-  15:38, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Version reviewed

First, I am not going to do a full review, because I suck at anything but clear-cut reviews, and I don't want to start something again (see Talk:Dol Guldur). But, a few comments for you:


 * per WP:LEAD, the lead section should probably be a lot longer...4 paragraphs, probably.
 * Is it possible to get it longer? If not, I'll slash it.
 * per WP:LEAD it is preferable to have no references in the lead.


 * Using these two sites... and :
 * Ref #14 is dead.
 * Ref #2 is to rottentomatoes.com...is there a specific page you want to link too?
 * Ref #75 didn't let me in...
 * Point it to a specific point within the grammy site?
 * Twister (film) goes to a disambig.
 * So does Mobile.

Cheers and good luck (as this is my favorite movie, another reason to not review it),  -talk- the_ed17  -contribs-  20:34, 5 September 2008 (UTC)


 * All done. Leads for films are usually three paragraphs; the first paragraph is the plot, the second is development, the third is marketing, release, and reception. Gary King ( talk ) 00:22, 6 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Alright, I give in&mdash;I'm reviewing it...I should have the full review up within an hour at the most.  -talk- the_ed17  -contribs-  00:31, 6 September 2008 (UTC)


 * You know what's sad? The full review took me 59 minutes. =D  -talk- the_ed17  -contribs-  01:40, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria


 * 1) Is it reasonably well written?
 * A. Prose quality:
 * B. MoS compliance:
 * 1) Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
 * A. References to sources:
 * B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
 * C. No original research:
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. Major aspects:
 * B. Focused:
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) 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:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) 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:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Pass or Fail:

Lead

 * These need to be sourced somewhere in the article!
 * The movie was scheduled for release on July 3, 1996, but due to the high level of anticipation for the film, many theaters began showing it on the evening of July 2, 1996, the same day the action in the film begins.
 * It currently holds the 19th highest worldwide gross for a movie all-time, and was at the forefront of the large-scale disaster film and science fiction resurgences of the mid-to-late-1990s. my bad.  -talk-  the_ed17  -contribs-  05:21, 6 September 2008 (UTC)


 * They are sourced and elaborated upon in the "commercial" sub-section. - SoSaysChappy (talk) 05:16, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Not the first sentence...  -talk- the_ed17  -contribs-  05:21, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Right you are ...my apologies. That fact is noted in the "distribution" section, and I added the one little detail to reflect what was said in the lead. - SoSaysChappy (talk) 05:29, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Good work...✅  -talk- the_ed17  -contribs-  14:57, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Plot Summary

 * Should the summary be in past tense? (I really don't know, which is why the rest of these comments will still use present tense, but I think that it would sound a lot better with past tense...)
 * See comments at the bottom.  -talk- the_ed17  -contribs-  14:57, 6 September 2008 (UTC)


 * You say "several dozen saucer-shaped "destroyer" spacecraft"--why "destroyer"? The humans didn't know if they were "destroyer" craft.


 * When the David character is explaining his virus plan in the bunker, there is a drawing behind him, identifying them as such. I believe that's why "destroyer" is in quotation marks. (same with "attacker") - SoSaysChappy (talk) 05:16, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Is that not OR though? ;) And the humans didn't know if they were destroyers at that point in the movie...  -talk- the_ed17  -contribs-  05:31, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I suppose. I don't know if re-wording to read ...saucer-shaped spacecraft (later referred to in the fim as "destroyers")... would be a good idea, but I'd suggest it anyway (using the word "destroyer" to describe that particular ship in all other mentions of it in the article would simplify things). The Defense Secretary does refer verbally to the smaller ships as "attackers" however. - SoSaysChappy (talk) 06:00, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The Defense Secretary said that because he was trying to look better....just pick one and run with it, and then I'll slash it.  -talk- the_ed17  -contribs- 
 * Done. "Attacker" it is. Gary King ( talk ) 15:11, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Argh! Glad to see this passed, but this is still bugging me. I guess I'm not being clear enough. The mother ship is the giant ship in orbit. The destroyers are the city-sized saucers that come down and blow up cities. The attackers are the smallest that engage the F-18s. What I meant was that the destroyers are never referred to as destroyers verbally in the film. BUT...in a drawn-up diagram of each ship, the city-sized ships are clearly labeled "destroyers". The movie is pretty straightforward about it....Jeff Goldblum points right at it for several seconds. They need to be described as "destroyers" in this article to distinguish them from "attackers", which are mentioned in the article as well but are completely different types of ships. I'll go ahead and change for now. If it's changed back, please discuss. - SoSaysChappy (talk) 00:45, 7 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Earth's major cities should be de-linked, if one was to say that all of those 47 cities were destroyed, it would be OR.
 * Done. So true, because I have seen edits where an unnecessary list of several major cities is added to this sentence. - SoSaysChappy (talk) 05:16, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
 * When in heck did you see edits like that, mister I've been around since the beginning of August? =D Just kidding.  -talk- the_ed17  -contribs-  14:57, 6 September 2008 (UTC)


 * "The President orders an evacuation of the targeted cities, but soon afterwards, the aliens, using advanced directed-energy weapons, destroy the cities."...sounds weird to me, maybe "The President orders large-scale evacuations of the targeted cities, but the aliens attacked with advanced directed energy weapons before these could occur."
 * I would suggest re-wording it without including the mention and wikilink of "directed-energy weapons." It links to a low quality article which includes a ton of OR in its sections regarding science fiction. What's difficult is describing the weapon without it being OR, since it's never really explained in the movie. - SoSaysChappy (talk) 05:16, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
 * "The mention"...of what?  -talk- the_ed17  -contribs-  05:31, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The mention of "directed energy weapon". In the movie the middle of the underside of the ship opens up to reveal a big cone of sorts, which zaps down some kind of green/blue laser beam that blows up buildings and starts the chain reaction of destruction. This has to be described according to standard somehow. - SoSaysChappy (talk) 06:00, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Wellll I've seen articles with limited OR so that they could state something like that. Directed energy weapon is fine, because the weapon is obviously that, and anyone watching the movie can tell, so it not going to be mentioned in the movie as one, and its not going to be mentioned in reviews because everyone knows!  -talk- the_ed17  -contribs- 

✅  -talk- the_ed17  -contribs-  15:22, 6 September 2008 (UTC)


 * "The President, portions of his staff, and the Levinsons narrowly escape aboard Air Force One as a destroyer lays waste to Washington D.C." ....sounds weird also. Don't quite know how to re-word this one.
 * "As Washington D.C. is destroyed, the President, portions of his staff, and the Levinsons narrowly escape aboard Air Force One" perhaps? - SoSaysChappy (talk) 05:16, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
 * "The President narrowly escapes aboard Air Force One as a destroyer lays waste to Washington D.C.; only him, portions of his staff, and the Levinsons were able to get out aboard the plane."  -talk- the_ed17  -contribs-  14:57, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't want to change this because I think the original text is acceptable. Gary King ( talk ) 15:13, 6 September 2008 (UTC)


 * "On July 3, the United States conducts a coordinated counterattack. A squadron of Marine Corps F/A-18 Hornets, the Black Knights stationed out of El Toro MCAS in Irvine, California ..." ...On July 3, the United States conducts a coordinated counterattack; the movie follows one of these battles, showing a squadron of Marine Corps..." Does that sound better?
 * That does sound better. I would suggest leaving out the "stationed out of..." part. This info stretches the sentence too long, and can be found on the Black Knights article. - SoSaysChappy (talk) 05:16, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Good point.  -talk- the_ed17  -contribs- 


 * Add the italicized text: "Captain Steven Hiller (Will Smith) ends up as the sole survivor of all of the squadrons sent against the aliens"
 * Do we know for certain that the Hiller character was the only survivor of the attack? I would remove the part that states he's the "sole survivor" (I don't like the phrase "ends up" anyway). How about ..."releasing scores of 'attacker' ships, and a one-sided dogfight ensues. Captain Steven Hiller manages to survive the attack by luring a single attacker..."? - SoSaysChappy (talk) 05:16, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Better. =)  -talk- the_ed17  -contribs- 


 * Was it really the Grand Canyon...? I doubt it; the original attack was over Los Angeles!
 * It was, but eventually Hiller finds himself all the way out in the Grand Canyon while fleeing from an alien ship for so long. Remember him weaving about the canyon walls as the alien continued to give chase? - SoSaysChappy (talk) 05:16, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Where did it say it was the Grand Canyon...? I know that it was a long time, but....  -talk- the_ed17  -contribs- 
 * Would it be best to find an external article that specifically states that it is the Grand Canyon and use that as a source? - SoSaysChappy (talk) 06:00, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes!  -talk- the_ed17  -contribs-  14:57, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I added a reference. It is a newspaper. Gary King ( talk ) 15:15, 6 September 2008 (UTC)


 * alien pilot => alien.....jet's => jets'
 * Should it remain "jet's" since it is refers to just one plane? - SoSaysChappy (talk) 05:16, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
 * No, that would be a grammatical mistake--with his jet's braking parachute--the apostrophe shows possession. (not plurality!)  -talk- the_ed17  -contribs-  05:31, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
 * But from what I can tell, it's intended to show possession. The braking parachute belongs to the jet. Or maybe it'll be best to remove the word altogether. We already know from earlier that he's in a jet. - SoSaysChappy (talk) 06:00, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Good idea...I'm still convinced that "jet's" is the plural possession form...or something like that.  -talk- the_ed17  -contribs-  14:57, 6 September 2008 (UTC)


 * "When lead scientist Dr. Brackish Okun (Brent Spiner) examines the new alien specimen, it attempts escape and takes control of his mind." Add something about how the all of the research team died...pretty big part there...
 * Done. Elaborated a little as well. - SoSaysChappy (talk) 05:16, 6 September 2008 (UTC)


 * "...using B-2 Spirit bombers on an alien destroyer which is hovering over a deserted Houston..." how about "on one of the alien destroyer hovering over now-deserted Houston."
 * Would "the" insinuate that it's the only destroyer left? - SoSaysChappy (talk) 05:16, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Good point, changed the sentence above to reflect that.  -talk- the_ed17  -contribs- 


 * "On July 4, Levinson devises a plan to use the captured attacker to gain access to the interior..." What captured attacker? Was this mentioned earlier?
 * It was mentioned at the end of the second paragraph in the plot summary; "Area 51 conceals a top secret facility housing a repaired attacker and three alien bodies recovered from Roswell in 1947." - SoSaysChappy (talk) 05:16, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Then the second part should use the words "repaired attacker" too, or the first one should be "captured attacker"...  -talk- the_ed17  -contribs- 
 * Good point, since (according to the Roswell legend) it was recovered after a crash rather than "captured." Changed second mention to "repaired." - SoSaysChappy (talk) 06:00, 6 September 2008 (UTC)


 * "The underside of the alien craft opens up as its primary weapon" no one who has not seen the movie will know what the 'primary weapon is'.
 * This is another tricky one. If anyone can figure out a way to work around the similar problem that's stated above, this one should be easy to fix. - SoSaysChappy (talk) 05:16, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Gary King? Any ideas?  -talk- the_ed17  -contribs-  14:57, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I explained primary weapons in the beginning of the Plot. Gary King ( talk ) 15:11, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I just removed it and replaced it with directed energy weapons...=D  -talk- the_ed17  -contribs-  15:22, 6 September 2008 (UTC)


 * "Russell possesses the one remaining missile"....to "Russell possesses the last remaining missile"

Cast and characters

 * I like it.

Starring List
Bill Pullman and Jeff Goldblum should REALLY be before Will Smith in the cast list becuz #1 they appear before him and #2 they have much more roles in the movie then them. OK, I know that Pullman and Goldblum are behind Smith in the MOVIE, but changes can be made on here that is different i.e. Ralphie is below his parents on the starring list of A Christmas Story, but on the artical it's the other way around. 75.69.239.55 (talk) 22:39, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Production

 * "hidden in some back field ...[o]r they arrive in little spores".... should [o]r be [or]?
 * I didn't put that in so I can't say for certain, but I imagine it's because it was originally "Or". Gary King ( talk ) 15:28, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I remember that Pullman ad-libbed his speech, from when I was watching DVDTV on AMC...add that in?
 * The source is apparently the "DVD commentary". I listened to the Blu-ray commentary...don't know itf it's the same, but, the producer pretty much told the story as exactly as it appears in the article. - SoSaysChappy (talk) 05:20, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Can that be even be sourced here on WP?  -talk- the_ed17  -contribs- 
 * I've seen discussions stating they can and they can't. I personally don't like them because a DVD commentary can't be accessed through a link at the end of an article. But, with all of that aside, in my last comment on this I was referring to simply the last line of the speech. Whether or not Pullman ad-libbed the whole speech is unknown by me. - SoSaysChappy (talk) 06:22, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, on that DVDTV thing AMC has on every month, it was stated that he ad-libbed the entire thing... That would be a good thing to add...  -talk- the_ed17  -contribs-  14:57, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Did you want to add this? (Italics added so you'll see it)  -talk- the_ed17  -contribs-  15:24, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I haven't seen that show personally so I don't think we should add it; if you've seen it and know that it supports that claim, then feel free to add it in for us. Thanks! Gary King ( talk ) 15:26, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
 * ...It was awhile ago, and I don't remember all of the specifics...if I see it again I will add it in for sure. Plus, I don't know how to cite it! PASS.  -talk- the_ed17  -contribs-  15:34, 6 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Otherwise, I love it...learned a lot.

Distribution

 * Fine

Commercial

 * "A month after the film's release, jewelry designers and marketing consultants reported an increased interest in dolphin-themed jewelry, due to the fact that the character of Jasmine in the film wears dolphin earrings and is presented with a wedding ring that features a gold dolphin.[58]" Nice side note...very interesting!


 * Should the image of the TIME cover be removed? I seem to remember there being a fair use stipulation restricing the use of an image of a magazine cover unless it was in an article about the periodical itself. - SoSaysChappy (talk) 07:17, 6 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Disregard...just read a discussion about the guidelines and it seems that magazine cover is allowed if it helps better illustrate a statement in the article about the significance of the film; it "was at the forefront of the large-scale disaster film and science fiction resurgences of the mid-to-late-1990s." - SoSaysChappy (talk) 07:25, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Critical

 * It alternates...negative/positive/negative/positive etc. Maybe positive followed by negative? I dunno, this one isn't required...

Sequel

 * Rename the section to 'Possible sequel' or 'Discussed theme' or something of the like.


 * Done. Combined the two: "Sequel discussion". - SoSaysChappy (talk) 05:21, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Putting on hold until these are resolved; but overall this is a great article.  -talk- the_ed17  -contribs-  01:32, 6 September 2008 (UTC)


 * It looks like a lot was done while I was away. Thanks! It's hard to see what still needs to be done – by the looks of it, all of the issues raised have been addressed, though. I'd like to point out that plot sections in films, video games, and other similar articles are in present tense. Gary King ( talk ) 14:36, 6 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Alright, I didn't know, I just thought that it might sound better....whatever. =)  -talk- the_ed17  -contribs-  14:57, 6 September 2008 (UTC)


 * See the production section.  -talk- the_ed17  -contribs-  15:25, 6 September 2008 (UTC)