Talk:Evan Almighty

Photos of the ark

I took some photos of the ark in Crozet yesterday, and once I get those processed, I'll post a photo for the article. Also, do you think an additional photo of Waynesboro dressed as "Huntsville" would be a bit over the top for the article? SchuminWeb (Talk) 04:18, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

But God said...

"I will establish my covenant with you, that never again shall all bodily creatures be destroyed by the waters of a flood; there shall not be another flood to devastate the earth." Genesis 9:11

If anyone knows how the movie plans to tackle this, I think it would be a very good thing to add to this article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.251.213.222 (talk) 05:25, 13 May 2007 (UTC).

I think I read somewhere that it had something to do with a dam, but I can't confirm that. I'll wait until the film is released and I'm able to find out for myself. --Nehrams2020 07:11, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

It was me who said it was a dam. I saw a screener for it about 5 weeks ago. You will just have to take my word for it. Unless anyone else who saw it early can add in. Coolpepper43 01:42, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

It probably has to do with more localized flood in the movie, not one of the whole earth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.158.61.142 (talk • contribs)

Ahhhh, yeah, God said a lot of things in the Old Testament (e.g., that the Jewish people could take the virgins from the people that they slaughtered and use them basically as sex slaves--ie. they could marry them or dismiss them as they wanted, regardless of the desires of the women). I wouldn't count on anyone, even a theologian, trying to make sense of all the bunk in the Old Testament. I haven't seen the movie, but they could always just do what most Christians do: ignore the parts they don't like. -Justin

Keep religion bashing off of here. God doesn't create the flood in the movie, as has been stated. 74.114.211.12 14:33, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Sure, God, does not actually create the flood, but he did know it was going to happen. Why, in his infinite power, did he not choose to stop it himself? Why did God not intervene when this Congressman (the one played by John Goodman, I cannot remember the character's name) was planning to build a cheap dam to cut costs? Furthermore, why did God allow for the dam to burst in the first place? What would have happened if Evan failed? I find it odd that despite his supposed universe- creating power, he cannot stop a local flood without human assistance. Jason Keyes 16:16, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

This is not the venue for such discussions, since this thread is not related to improvement of the article. This is not a chat board about the topic, but a page to discuss improvements to the article. SchuminWeb (Talk) 18:32, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

My apologies. Jason Keyes 18:41, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

...to devestate the earth... how bout the earth is a mite larger then the flood in this movie is capable of devastating. No theological discourse needed. And step away from your Bible. For our safety. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.149.186.174 (talk) 16:42, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

God didn't cause the flood. Congressman Long allowed a bad dam to be built and God know it would collapse. He just warned Evan.--Metallurgist (talk) 06:31, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

You guys DO realize this movie was to help people understand exactly how hard things were for Noah. It was suppost to put the story into a modern view. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.108.150.9 (talk) 04:34, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Similar to the The Santa Clause

In the previews, Steve Carell appearance changes to what most people think Noah looked like. In "The Santa Clause" (1994), Tim Allen appearance changed to the most popular image people have of Santa Claus, (St. Nicholas).204.80.61.110 16:35, 7 June 2007 (UTC)Bennett Turk

• one of the reasons why the movie's a stinker. one of the "funnier" gags, was already done years earlier. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.108.125.158 (talk • contribs)

Well It is similar in some ways but I think most people will not notice the similarity Onepiece226 (talk) 20:18, 13 January 2008 (UTC)Onepiece226

Animal Welfare Issues

There were a lot of problems with the numbers and types of animals used in this movie. I read that two of the chimpanzees were surrendered to a sanctuary related to animal cruelty complaints. I think that this should be part of this article. I'll research this to get sources but I wondered if anyone else heard about this? Bob98133 21:17, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

You would be the first. Get some reliable sources before you add such a thing to the article, though. SchuminWeb (Talk) 01:37, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Here's what I came up with - it would go under Animal Welfare Concerns, and also maybe move the line about AHA oversight into this section. Let me know if there are any problems with posting this. Thanks Bob98133 15:26, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Evan Almighty and Universal Pictures were accused by animal rights group PETA of using animals who had been previously abused in the production of this movie. Two chimpanzees who appear in the movie, Cody and Sable, were surrendered by their owner to settle a lawsuit that documented allegations of beatings and mistreatment [1]. In an online interview, Director Tom Shadyac said of PETA’s criticisms “They’re not wrong. There’s a certain amount of hypocrisy whenever you work with animals, even to show, which we hope we’re showing, that respect of all of God’s creation… I don’t know. I respect their criticism.[2]” PETA was also critical of Birds & Animals Unlimited, the primary animal supplier to the film, for alleged serious and continuing violations of the US Animal Welfare Act, including failure to comply with veterinary care requirements and failure to provide shelter from heat and sunlight, which PETA details and claims it can document [3].

WP:NPOV. That quote and presentation was misleading and I've changed it in the article. It make it seem if the animals were abused on the film. The film makers acknowledge that some of the chimps used in the film had been rescued from abusive situations. The director was acknowledging that fact and talking about difficulty of using any animals but also pointing out that the animals were from a sanctuary and could not be returned to the wild. PETA are clear about their agenda, their statements should always be examined carefully, and presented cautiously. -- 109.78.244.26 (talk) 23:54, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Controversy

You know how Bruce Almighty was bannded in Egypt? Has anyone ever heard of similar stuff about this movie? IT should be added to the article. THROUGH FIRE, JUSTICE IS SERVED! 04:39, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Not yet. All I've heard at this point about the movie post-release is that an AP reviewer panned it. SchuminWeb (Talk) 21:32, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I am a little concerned about this controversy section. While I don't doubt that the controversy existed, it is so outrageous and so clearly has nothing to do with Islam whatsoever, I feel a counter point to the controversy should be added. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.147.110.167 (talk) 22:35, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

If you can find any reliable sources that provide an alternate view on the subject that would help for expanding the section. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 00:20, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Is an alternate source even called for. Frankly I don't think anyone knew of the controversy, because it is so laughable on the face of it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.147.110.167 (talk) 04:29, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

The text seems to contradict your view that nobody knew about this controversy. The link in the reference no longer works, so some other ref should be inserted to support the text. 24, I don't understand what's laughable about a religious group objecting to the content in this clearly religious-inspired movie. I'm with Nehrams, if you aren't happy with the existing text, find some references to dispute it. Bob98133 (talk) 14:27, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Trivia tagging

I've tagged the "Religious allusions" and "Trivia" sections with the {{trivia}} tag. I have a feeling that at least some of the "religious allusions" section could possibly be converted to prose and incorporated, but I think that the "Trivia" section probably should just get axed.

By the way, if anyone thinks it's worthwhile, I have a photo of the Wayne Theatre with the "40 year old Virgin Mary" marquee. Might be worth including. SchuminWeb (Talk) 22:51, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Trivia removal

Considering that trivia on top of trivia is being added, I'm to the point where it needs to go. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, after all, so if we can't work it into the main body in a day or so, it's going. SchuminWeb (Talk) 10:29, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Box Office and Critical Reaction

This is just a suggestion, but it wouldn't it be appropriate to have an expanded critical reaction section to the movie as well as initial box office intake? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.117.50.66 (talk • contribs)

I agree. Especially because the current Box Office section does not seem to be impartial or written in the style of an encyclopedic article, at least to me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.244.91.99 (talk • contribs)

Contradictory

The article says it reached #3 in the box offices, but it's listed as a #1 at the bottom. Which is it?--209.243.31.233 08:24, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't know, so I tagged it. SchuminWeb (Talk) 23:18, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I got this information from the IMDB top ten lists, and various newspapers and on.Nocarsgo 03:15, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Could you cite these? I've placed {{fact}} tags where I'd like to see citations. SchuminWeb (Talk) 03:35, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I think it was meant to mean that it opened at number one in its first weekend and then in third place in the second week. --Nehrams2020 08:44, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

http://imdb.com/chart/ is where i got it.. but then it changed.

It's updated every week so that's why the information would have changed. --Nehrams2020 01:13, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Then I propose waiting until that page stabilizes a bit. Otherwise, we'll continue to have problems like this... SchuminWeb (Talk) 17:10, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, the film's going to switch from position to position in the top ten (if it even makes it this week). I'd say to focus on using boxofficemojo who keeps its position each week of its release, revenue, and total gross. That's what I used for the source. If we were to keep using this IMDB page, eventually Evan Almighty wouldn't even show up on it anymore. --Nehrams2020 18:33, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

GAC

Throughout the day today I added multiple sources and several sections of information. I nominated the article at GAC, so please look the article over and see if there are any problems before another editor reviews the article which could be over the next few days or weeks. I'll make sure the box office information and RT numbers are updated and will add a DVD release section as soon as more information becomes available. Good work to everybody that contributed to the article and added sources. --Nehrams2020 05:43, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

GAN

I conducted the review this morning and found no serious issues whatsoever, it met the criteria for a GA quite easily, so it's been promoted. The Rambling Man 08:06, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Wording

In the first paragraph, could the writer have meant climactic flood scene? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.82.9.73 (talk • contribs)

Seems likely enough to make the change, which I did. SchuminWeb (Talk) 15:48, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Great work guys!

I don't usually put comments like this in articles, but besides the lack of some much needed pictures, this article is amazing, truly one of the best film articles I have ever seen! You should all be proud :) I hereby give the following barnstar to anyone that has ever edited this article!

		The Original Barnstar
		JayKeaton officially grants the Original Barnstar to (your name will appear here) for all the top grade work this user has done for the Evan Almighty article.

If you would like to place this barnstar on your user page please copy the entire line of bold text below and paste it straight onto your userpage!

{{subst:The Original Barnstar|[[User:JayKeaton|JayKeaton]] officially grants the [[Wikipedia:Barnstars/General|Original Barnstar]] to ~~~ for all the top grade work this user has done for the [[Evan Almighty]] article.}}

Good work, you have truly earned this barnstar! JayKeaton 14:38, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Automatic addition of "class=GA"

A bot has added class=GA to the WikiProject banners on this page, as it's listed as a good article. If you see a mistake, please revert, and leave a note on the bot's talk page. Thanks, _BOT Giggabot (talk) 05:34, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Why all the focus on animal rights?

When I watched this film I saw a great retelling of a Christian theme. Why is the only thing discussed here animal rights, rather than Christianity as well? DurotarLord (talk) 03:45, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

I added information from what was available, and there was a lot about the animal rights. If you can find more sources that speak about the Christian theme, then you can be sure to add something, as it will surely improve the article. I haven't found too much information, but I'd imagine there has to be something out there. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 04:46, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Controversy

I believe that some of the material contained within the Controversy section is innacurate. My main query lies with the paragraph "Also, many people of various religions have pointed out that God promised in the Bible to never let a flood loose upon the Earth again, something that the film neglects to explain why God's breaking his promise."

I understood that a global flood was promised not to reoccur, whereas the flood in the film is a flood of far lesser extent. Just curious. 61.68.214.62 (talk) 02:54, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

That statement is totally unsourced, and as you are demonstrating, it is controversial. I'm removing it from the article, unless someone wants to come up with a reliable source for it in the next ten seconds. SchuminWeb (Talk) 04:26, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Caption

In the caption below the image in the plot section depicting the character Evan sitting in the partly completed ark, there is a statement which is inaccurate:

"Evan's costume was created based on research of the clothing worn at the time of Noah."

As there is no conclusive evidence suggesting that there even was a historical Noah, such research would be impossible, suggesting that this statement may not be correct. Though it is attributed to a cited source, it is of questionable reliability and the only text within it relating to the costume is as follows:

"Completing Evan’s miraculous makeover, Carell donned several “ancient” robes to become the world’s most famous seafarer. As with any historical element for the comedy, research played an integral part in helping the team to craft together the iconic look of biblical character Noah. Veteran costume designer Ruskin Howell designed the rough-hewn silk-burlap robes to look as authentic as possible, completing them with several functional touches to stand up to the punishments of the daily wear and tear of filming. Ruskin Howell conferred with textile experts, read up on her ancient history and aged fibers to achieve the proper patina and look for Carell’s multiple robes."

This article gives very little information about the nature of the "research" which was done (if it can even be called "research") in order to assure the "authenticity" of the costume. Consequently,it is my opinion that the above statement should be removed. --71.116.164.186 (talk) 01:47, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Since it is likely that we do not know of the clothing at that time period, perhaps we should add "likely" to the caption. I don't know if they somehow recovered garments through archaeological digs or if we had information about clothing worn in other parts of the world that was similar. In the article, Howell read up on the material used, which could have been described in historical texts. Do you think changing it to "Evan's costume was created based on research of the clothing that was likely worn at the time of Noah." would work? By adding likely we aren't saying for certain that we knew what the clothes were like at the time, but then we aren't also eliminating the possibility as well. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 02:43, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Seems a sound solution to me. I've implemented your suggestion. SchuminWeb (Talk) 02:55, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Part of the problem with this is that it is not known if Noah even existed or, if he did exist, when he did. As there is no known time period in which he is known to have lived, it would have been impossible for any actual research to be done and the failure of the source to elaborate on the type of research done only heightens my suspicion of the validity of such research. It is more likely that the clothing was simply made based on how the costume designer thought that Noah should look. It would be better simply to remove this sentence from the caption. --71.116.171.64 (talk) 16:03, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Anon is right; it is absurd to even talk of "the time of Noah". Furthermore, what the source says is simply that the film makers have tried to recreate "the iconic look" of Noah, which means the way in which he has been portrayed in art over the last few centuries. In addition to this, they also tried to make the fabric look convincingly ancient. I changed the wording to: "Research was done to give Evan's costume an authentic, ancient look." Lampman (talk) 15:36, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

uhh.....

why doesnt it say the thing that happened at the end credits? it had god holding up the tn commandments then he turned it over and it had something like

11: thou shall not lose the right to party

could someone put that in? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.108.218.230 (talk) 15:36, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

You mean, "Thou shalt do the dance"? Not particularly notable, as it's after the end of the story. SchuminWeb (Talk) 19:21, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually, the above is correct. Thou shall do the dance. I really liked this movie personally, but I guess that is because I'm religious. It's a shame it didn't get better reviews; I personally see it as underappreciated. It was well acted, in my opinion. --74.184.188.59 (talk) 18:07, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

GA Sweeps

This article has been reviewed as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force. I believe the article currently meets the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. Although the original GA review seemed pretty drive-by, I think this article holds up. The article history has been updated to reflect this review. Lampman (talk) 01:34, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Ending

In the Ending God said: "I now issue a new commandment,*Thou shalt do the Dance*. Should we add this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.104.201.54 (talk) 11:15, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Why is that important? It isn't important to the plot and I haven't seen any articles mentioning it. BOVINEBOY2008 :) 13:27, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

It's not notable. It's the lead-in to the credits, after the movie is over. SchuminWeb (Talk) 14:40, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

at least 13 dead references

One of the most important reference-links for this article ist dead! It´s reference #3, which serves as reference for no less than 13 statements in this article. I think it was a pretty dumb idea to link everything to one (pdf-)file, instead to other internet-rescources. I didn´t check the other links by now, but no less than 13 statements without proper reference already compromises the whole article! --93.133.235.23 (talk) 15:21, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, links do tend to die sometimes. This is why the quality of one's citations is important, and I believe we cited this one properly. SchuminWeb (Talk) 15:28, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Fixed the dead link and a few other using the Internet Archive. Feel free to find additional sources for citing the other content instead of using the PDF, more sources are always helpful. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 03:14, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Referencing of other movies

There are few references to Steve Carrell's other movies in this one, the most noticable of these where he sees a cinema title that says "The Forty Year Old Virgin Mary" Timeoin (talk) 11:36, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Although entertaining for viewers of the film, including details within the article would be considered trivia, and its inclusion would not really improve readers' understanding of the topic. If there were multiple references that were significantly covered by reviewers, then a mention could be made. Otherwise, we'll leave the trivia to IMDB, which the article links to. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 00:44, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Soundtrack

DO NOT REMOVE TRACK 5 SPIRIT IN THE SKY BY PLUMB WITH MIKESCHAIR! The physical soundtrack itself says that on it. We are to post accuracy on Wikipedia not contradict those who own the actual soundtrack itself cause anyone who owns it will tell you that it says:

5. Spirit In The Sky PLUMB WITH MIKESCHAIR

on the back of the album, sorry there's no better source then that but the soundtrack itself should be source enough, so please DO NOT remove this again. Thank you. JamesAlan1986 02:12, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Featured animals

The list of animals that was added in January strikes me as a little ridiculous. Firstly, the animals are not cast members. Secondly, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, and very few people are going to find this sort of trivia useful, or even interesting. Thirdly, it's not even sourced, and may well be original research. I'm hesitant to just remove it, since it's been there a while and no-one's objected to it yet, but does anyone else share my concerns? DoctorKubla (talk) 20:23, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

I just saw it as well. It's rather pointless. I'm going to remove it. 99.192.65.14 (talk) 20:55, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

The list has crept back in as of February 2019, but I don't see a change in consensus. I agree with the 2 editors above and will remove again. Hoof Hearted (talk) 18:10, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Evan Almighty Sequel

Evan Almighty is a sequel to Bruce Almighty (2003) not Shrek. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.204.29.56 (talk) 01:17, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Evan Almighty. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

• Attempted to fix sourcing for //www.suntimes.com/entertainment/movies/437886,CST-FTR-evan22.article

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:13, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Evan Almighty. 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for //www.calendarlive.com/movies/cl-fi-evan9oct09,0,2164715.story?coll=cl-movies

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 03:55, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Kindness as an extra twitch.

There is an extra twitch, which doesnt seems to be mentioned as yet. About Kindness as someting very important. Now, I saw the film translated to swedish, so Im not sure what God was supposed to say in english. It was in the scenes with the homeless dog, getting water, and later on adopted. God says something as: Kindness may begin randomly, one step at a time. In the ending scenes God writes the letters ARK. Which I suppose was short for the english equivalent... Please, what was it?/StefanZ78.69.228.145 (talk) 21:07, 9 July 2016 (UTC)/StefanZ

ARK is for Act of Random Kindness. I believe there is yet another such a phrase/Acronyme with the same meaning./StefanZ83.223.9.173 (talk) 07:18, 11 December 2017 (UTC)/StefanZ-Random Acts of Kindness is the most common spelling. So these riddles are settled! I even see its mentioned now in the main article.  :) /StefanZ83.223.9.173 (talk) 07:52, 21 December 2017 (UTC)/StefanZ

Mr. Smith goes to washington

Several reviews (and even wikipedia) note the obvious tribute to the capra movie:

• http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/review/evan-almighty-159169
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mr._Smith_Goes_to_Washington
• http://www.metrotimes.com/the-scene/archives/2007/06/27/evan-almighty — Preceding unsigned comment added by 52.119.105.14 (talk) 17:16, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

The critical response section could do with substantial improvement, it falls into the trap of complaining that the film was bad while not actually saying anything about the film, the story, the performances or the production. It could still do with an extensive rewrite. I might eventually do it myself. -- 109.78.244.26 (talk) 23:43, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Evan Almighty. 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/20110714174121/http://www.getonboardnow.org/ to http://www.getonboardnow.org/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?file=%2F2007%2F7%2F14%2Fnation%2F18304636&sec=nation

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: 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) 11:11, 25 September 2017 (UTC)