Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Green Lantern (film)/2

Green Lantern (film)

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result pending

Hi, I believe the article and the review does not meet the quality standards outlined in WP:GAN/I and should be reassessed.

Here are some points I think need fixing. Sorry in advance if this ends up being too long.

1. Plot/Arrowverse sections

I don't think the plot section follows the guidelines (MOS:FILMPLOT).

It's almost 700 words, and some parts are too detailed, with "scene-by-scene breakdowns." It also talks about the characters' actions and events in a way that feels more like telling a story than giving a summary.

For the Arrowverse, I don't think it needs its own section. It could be mentioned in the opening paragraph of the plot summary that the movie is set on Earth-12, and then a note could be added maybe something like "Billions of years ago, on Earth-12 the Guardians of the Universe used the green essence of willpower to create an intergalactic police force called the Green Lantern Corps."

2. Music section

• It's not that significant on its own; it should be a subsection under the production section. (MOS:FILMMUSIC)

• I think the Green Lantern (soundtrack) page should be merged under the production section as a subsection because the soundtrack album is insufficient and fails WP:NALBUMS. So I don't think it's controversial to just merge it.(WP:SUBNOT).

3. Release section

• I think the "Marketing" subsection should be the main section. Under it, the "Theatrical" and "Home Media" subsections should be merged into a single subsection titled "Release".

• The other subsections, Animation, Comics, Roller Coaster, and Video Game, should be placed under their own section titled "Related Media." This makes more sense imo.
  • The Roller Coaster subsection has an unsourced paragraph. Either add sources or remove it.

4. Reception section

• The Box Office subsection has an unsourced paragraph.
• Many industry analysts felt that Green Lantern failed to perform to expectations. This should be expanded to include who made this statement, when it was said, and the reasons behind it.
• Some publications listed the losses for the studio as high as $75 million could be better worded idk.
• In the Critical Response section, more reviews should be added (check Rotten Tomatoes for missing reviews). Also, following WP:RECEPTION. Yes, it's not a guideline, but I'm sure it will improve the quality.
• For Accolades, add another table for refs, also the Reelz Channel ref is broken.

5. Future/In popular culture sections

• Maybe it's just me, but I think it could flow better similar to the "Cancelled DC Extended Universe Reboot" subsection. The other subsections might work better if they followed the same tone.
• "Future" section could be re-titled to "Follow-up" or "Cancelled Projects." Idk, it just makes more sense than calling it "Future."

6. References

• There are some CS1, MOS:CAPS, and MOS:QWQ errors that need fixing.

7. Infobox

• Relocate the references into the article body (MOS:INFOBOXREF)

8. Lead section

• Relocate the references into the article body.
• Add something about the Critical Response and Accolades. (MOS:FILMLEAD)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Lililolol (talk • contribs) 03:46, 29 December 2024 (UTC)