# Talk:Justice League (Smallville)

There is a disagreement over the fair use of the compare/contrast image for the character costumes. I think this should be discussed, based on the case-by-case basis identified by WP:NONFREE#Non-free image use in galleries. I have left request for comments at WP:COMICS, WP:TV, WP:NONFREE, and WP:FUC. To save space, I'll link to my original post to the editor who first removed the image (first post), as well as my second response (second response), and direct eyes to the section in particular (Justice League (Smallville)#Costumes). My opinion is that there is critical commentary on the illustration of the costumes for the show, and that there was critical commentary on how they were altered from their comic book counterparts. Given that basic descriptions of such changes can be difficult to imagine, I feel it is appropriate to illustrate those changes (based on what the reliable sources say, and not personal identifications) for the reader. I chose the "gallery" of images (even those it's a single image file), because it is easier to illustrate it than go through multiple, individual images.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 19:06, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree that it's a thing that is hard to imagine, and requires an illustration.  But, is it minimal?  Could you use something like this or this?  Basically using the smallest number of group shots, since each image is considered another use. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 01:19, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
The first might be fine, but Clark's "costume" isn't really discussed on the page primarily because he has his own page and also because he doesn't really have a "costume" at this point. The second is good, but it leaves out Bart and Cyborg, and Cyborg probably has the most significant change from any of them. That was kind of why I resorted to using the individual promo shots from the companion books.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 01:58, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
I agree that your way looks best, it just uses what we would classify as 10 non-free images.  Using the shot with three of them would reduce it to 8, for instance.  I think using a cropped version of the first without Clark might count as 1, although I'm not sure.  Cyborg may need two non-free images, since he wasn't in the comics JLA.  You can probably group the GA and BC comics images pretty easily, since their lovers in the comics, I think. [1][2] [3]  I bet with some clever google searching, it could be done with 4-6 total non-free images. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 02:20, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
I like some of those images, but the only problem that I can foresee is that they would look pretty weird in a compare/contrast image setup. I understand the issue with having 10 N-F images, but the only reason I did it that was because it provided the best comparison images, while at the same time making everything appear neater and similar across the board. It's just a very tricky setup for trying to illustrate the costumes, while at the same time keeping in-line with the policy.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 02:25, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
The non-free policy frequently makes these things tricky.  I haven't read this article, so I don't know what would be best.  Maybe you can refactor some text to match an image, I don't know.  Or a tall gallery on the right side.  Or something.  I would just say that if I was doing a GA review, I'd ask for as much reduction as you can do.  At FA, I think this article might pick up a few quick opposes based on the images.  If you really want feedback, you could ask at NONFREE, but I'm not always a big fan of their "input". - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 03:00, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
I've already requested comments there. I posted there, FUC, TV and COMICS. NONFREE says that galleries are generally a no-no, but if you can justify them then they are ok; it's my opinion that this is one of the exceptions to the rule on galleries. Obviously 10 N-F images is a lot, I admit that, but I think in this case "10" is merely a number that isn't reflective of what the image actually entails in value. IMO, the benefits outweigh the costs. I mean, I personally think the compare/contrast is important, but at the very least I can live without the comic versions (which would ultimately cut the gallery down to just 5 images).   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 03:28, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
If you don't need the comic images, then doesn't the infobox cover most of it? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 03:46, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
It's still missing Black Canary, has Clark when it doesn't need it, plus the fact that the screenshot isn't as clear as the promotional shots of each individual. Trust me, I'd rather keep the comic images, since at least half of the costume section talks about how Cranstoun utilized the comics as inspiration.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 03:56, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
Well, I would say use as many group shots as you can.  We should probably wait to see what others say, as well.  Finally, I'd like to know if cropping different parts of one non-free image is still one use.  If it is, that's probably the easiest way out. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 04:08, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
Given that each of the characters on their character page has their own set of images to compare the different versions, the "new" images here are not helpful towards meeting NFC#3a.  That said, at least one comparison on this page seems completely fair since (as best I can tell) the rationale behind the costume changes isn't discussed in any great detail on the individual character pages. --MASEM (t) 12:49, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

When you say "each of the characters", are you referring to each of the comic versions of the characters? I'm kind of lost. Are you in support of the image, or in support of a single character having a comparison?   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 13:44, 11 September 2009 (UTC)


### Arbitrary Break
I would agree with User:Masem that a group is a better relection of minmal use, and the removal of the comics images would help to move towards more minimal-use, as comic character images in greater detail can be found on each characters individual article. - Sharp962 (talk) 14:42, 11 September 2009 (UTC).

So, you're saying just limit the image to that of the Smallville characters (i.e. 10 NF images become 5), and just let the readers go to the respective comic articles to see what the original incarnations look like?   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 17:04, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
Maybe I'm missing something, but at that point, the infobox image seems to cover four of them. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 17:11, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
But it's not a very detailed look at the costumes.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 17:22, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
I see. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 17:24, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
At least, when it's blown up it becomes distorted. It's always easier to shrink and preserve the image than it is to blow up and preserve it. I think the promo shots of them individually are much better lit for being able to see the costumes. IDK, that's just my perception, and probably computer screen. :D   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 17:36, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
If there is significant critical commentary on the outfits, then one comparison shot would be reasonable, but on the other hand most of these characters have their own articles as well - mind you, most of those are rife with non-free image overuse as well. Black Kite 16:17, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
That was kind of what Sharp and Masem were stating (as far as I can see), is that an illustration of the current costumes is all that is needed, and just let the reader look at the individual comic pages for the comic versions.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 17:06, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
For what it's worth.  I believe the box image and one of Canary would be the best reflection of minimal use.-Sharp962 (talk) 02:00, 14 September 2009 (UTC).
Sigh...whatever. I'm tired of debating it. I've changed the image.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 03:10, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Justice League (Smallville)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Jezhotwells (talk) 20:52, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
I shall be reviewing this article against the Good Article criteria, following its nomination for Good Article status.
Disambiguations: none found.
Linkrot: one found and fixed.[4] Jezhotwells (talk) 20:57, 2 November 2010 (UTC)


### Checking against GA criteria
GA review (see here for criteria)
It is reasonably well written.
a (prose):  b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): 
The first member to appear on Smallville was Bart Allen (Kyle Gallner), who was introduced in the season four episode "Run".  How come Clark Kent isn't the first member? Y
Clark isn't the "first member" because Clark was not on the team originally. Clark declined to join the team when they were first formed. Maybe I can just put in "aside from Clark" or something similar to indicate that we're speaking directly about the other members of the team and not the one with whom the show is about?   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 01:21, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
In his first appearance, Arthur, who has the ability to swim at superhuman speeds and create energy blasts through the water, arrives in Smallville to stop an underwater weapon that Lex Luthor (Michael Rosenbaum) developed that is consequently killing the surrounding ocean life when it is fired. Rather long and complicated.  "consequently" to what? Y
I removed the extraneous word and trimmed wordiness.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 01:21, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
When Alaina Huffman went in to audition for Smallville no one told her who the character was she was auditioning for. It was not until she landed the role that they told her she would be playing Dinah Lance/Black Canary. This is an example of overly cumbersome prose. You could just say something like, "Alaina Huffman auditioned for Smallville without being aware of which role was being cast, and was offered the part of Dinah Lance/Black Canary." This is one example of many throughout the article.  Suggest a thorough copy-edit by a un-involved experienced copy-editor.  You could ask at the WP:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors
I have taken your above example and utilized that. I will go through the article myself for a copy edit, but just to make sure you feel satisfied with any efforts I did put in a request at the Guild.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 15:48, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
Later, they informed her of how major this character is to the DC mythology.  is very poor grammar. Who are "they"?  Done
Sorry, I totally missed this in your original assessment. How is this?   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 14:05, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
The writer also knew the television version would be a "smart-ass", which the writer said is partially inspired from the Flash that appears in the animated television series Justice League.  Explanation needed. Y
Explanation of what exactly?   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 01:21, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
Is this what you mean?   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 15:35, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
Much better.
At the same time, Clark was wrestling with the same idea of telling Lana Lang (Kristin Kreuk) his secret. Clumsy. Y
I tried to clean it up and tie it in more to the previous sentence.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 01:21, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
After creating Oliver’s Green Arrow costume, Cranstoun had the task up creating updated costume looks for Bart, Arthur, and Victor for the "Justice" episode. What is "up creating" supposed to mean? Y
"Up creating" is a typo....It should have been "of creating".   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 01:21, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
Although the team’s prominent appearances are on the television series, there has been additional media appearances based around marketing tie-ins. Confused tenses.
Still a long way to go to turn this into reasonably good prose. I think you are a little close to the subject matter to see it objectively.  Better to get an univolved editor who has a proven track record of writing good plain English.  This should have been done before you nominated the article. Sentences such as When DeKnight was crafting the episode "Run" for the first official appearance of Bart Allen he knew he had to give the character certain characteristics that embodied his comic book counterpart. DeKnight knew Bart had to be physically faster than Clark, because in the comic that is one advantage Flash has over Superman. are cumbersome, badly worded and unclear.Y
Another:  With all of the characters exhibiting superpowers, with exception going to Green Arrow/Oliver Queen, ...; Overall, the reception for the characters has been mixed. Clumsy.Y
Try reading it out aloud to see how badly the prose flows.
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references):  b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR): 
Sources appear reliable enough for GA.
What do The WB, The CW, etc. mean in the citations to the series itself?Y
They represent the publisher of the material in the citation template. I've clarified the first instances with "Television Network" and included a link their respective pages.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 01:24, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects):  b (focused): 
Broad, but over detailed and focussing too much on trivia in the sections Portrayals and Costumes. Trim the excess, focus on essentials.
Examples:
Approached by the producers, Phil Morris auditioned twice for the role of John Jones/Martian Manhunter, and then waited three weeks before he received the call that he had received the role. This happens to actors all the time, why is it important?
Well, I figured this was important to note simply because the producers came to him and yet he still had to audition twice and wasn't given the role until 3 weeks later. The prose could be tightened up still, but my reasoning for its importance is more based on the fact that in other instances when producers have approached actors (James Marsters for one) they gave them the role right there. They made Morris jump through some hoops first. If you still feel that it's "trivial" then I'll remove it.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 20:23, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
Well, I won't make federal case of it. Jezhotwells (talk) 13:57, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
Following his season four appearance, Gallner stated that he had given up hope of appearing on the series again, because of the extended period between season four and when they called him to appear in the season six episode "Justice" My reaction on reading this is so what?  Trivia. Done
Removed.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 20:23, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
Each of the actors had their own unique experiences with their costumes.????  Done
Removed.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 20:23, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
In the section Characteristics, someone called DeKnight, presumably a writer, suddenly appears in the narrative without any introduction. Y
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias: 

It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.: 

It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):  b (appropriate use with suitable captions): 

Overall:
Pass/Fail: 
OK, this article needs a thorough copy-edit. The prose is not good enough at present. There is rather too much attention to minutiae in the sections mentioned above.  This needs to be trimmed.  If this can be fixed in seven days then it may pass GA, if not it will fail. On hold for seven days. Jezhotwells (talk) 21:55, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
I've started work on the issues you brought up. I'm sure I can handle the copy editing if I go through it more finely than I did before. The issues with minutiae, are you just talking about wordiness within the sections (i.e. maybe too detailed about what they say), or are you saying that there is something completely irrelevant in the sections? (i.e. An example would be helpful so I can understand what you consider to be trivial, as it may be different from my definition).   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 01:21, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
Some examples of trivia above, but wordiness is a problem.  Much of this stuff is routine for any television series, not particularly notable.  Of course the actors did some research; of course the writers did some research; of course the designer did some research. That is what they are supposed to do.  The poorly phrased prose doesn't help, either. Jezhotwells (talk) 21:01, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
SMasters has done an official Guild copy edit on the article.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 12:48, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
It appears that the grammar has been markedly improved.  I note several points above, especially those relating to trivia have not been addressed. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:11, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
I took care of two of the trivial things you brought up. I'll try and go through again to see if I see any others, but what's trivial to me might be different for you and SMasters removed a couple of things they felt were trivial but apparently left others that they either didn't or just didn't notice.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 20:23, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
Just the one phrase, marked not done above. Jezhotwells (talk) 13:57, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, I didn't notice it before. I think I've fixed it. I blended it with another sentence, trimmed the overall wording, and identified that it was the producers (the source just says "producers") that told her about Black Canary.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 14:05, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
OK, all in order now.  i am happy to pass this as a good article. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:10, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

This is a detailed article, and i thought that since There's other members, that perhaps they should have a mention.
From those with only one appearance like the Wonder Twins- to those with more- like Speedy, or Zatanna(who had multiple appearances, and was part of those targeted as the Justice League later on)
But surely we can mention some of the others (IE: Zatanna appeared a lot in the last 3 seasons)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.170.113.227 (talk) 04:39, 27 September 2011 (UTC) 

Those other characters are never shown to be active members of the team. The Wonder Twins are not even initiated into the team. No one knows the extent of Speedy's involvement other than being trained by Oliver. Zatana appeared a total of 2 times, and has been mentioned only a couple of times, and it's never stated that she is an active member of the team. Every time she has appeared it has been as an individual story. The people listed on this page are shown to be active members of the team as displayed by their storylines when they appear.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 05:29, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Justice League (Smallville). 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/20090524013450/http://www.zap2it.com/tv/zap-story-smallville-justiceepisode%2C0%2C3695833.story to http://www.zap2it.com/tv/zap-story-smallville-justiceepisode%2C0%2C3695833.story
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070927021722/http://www.jamaica-gleaner.com/gleaner/20060603/ent/ent1.html to http://www.jamaica-gleaner.com/gleaner/20060603/ent/ent1.html
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hr/search/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1002315613
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.mediaweek.com/mw/news/networktv/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003574108
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: 5 June 2024).

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) 21:15, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Justice League (Smallville). 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/20081206143509/http://www.dvdverdict.com/reviews/smallvilleseason5.php to http://www.dvdverdict.com/reviews/smallvilleseason5.php
Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/5sTex98q0?url=http://abcmedianet.com/web/dnr/dispDNR.aspx?id=012307_05 to http://abcmedianet.com/web/dnr/dispDNR.aspx?id=012307_05
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: 5 June 2024).

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) 22:40, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

"Although Batman is aware that Queen is Green Arrow before he publicly reveals his secrets, Queen is oblivious of Wayne's."
Is it true? I'm trying to check the comic book, but I can't find any line where Bruce claims to be aware of Oliver's identity. Redjedi23 (talk) 11:46, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

I don't own the comics, so I'm not sure, but it references a specific volume. If you happen to have it, then I would look there. If it's not there, then remove the line.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 12:30, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
Ok, thank you. I checked the comic book but the line is not present, so... Redjedi23 (talk) 12:46, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
@Bignole I'm sorry for the ping. Can I ask you the meaning of "The series would have used characters that would be more easily cleared by the film division at Warner Bros."? Maybe it's because I'm not a native speaker, but I don't understand if "would be more easily cleared by the film division" means that they would be about to use characters that would be hardly used by the film division (i.e. for the movies) or not. Sorry again and thank you in advance. Redjedi23 (talk) 17:50, 12 April 2023 (UTC) PS: The main question is what does "cleared" mean in this context.
"Cleared" in this instance means "approved".   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 18:46, 12 April 2023 (UTC)