This article was reviewed by member(s) of WikiProject Articles for creation. The project works to allow users to contribute quality articles and media files to the encyclopedia and track their progress as they are developed. To participate, please visit the project page for more information.Articles for creationWikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creationTemplate:WikiProject Articles for creationAfC articles
This article was accepted on 13 April 2015 by reviewer Josve05a (talk·contribs).
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Comics, a collaborative effort to build an encyclopedic guide to comics on Wikipedia. Get involved! If you would like to participate, you can help with the current tasks, visit the notice board, edit the attached article or discuss it at the project's talk page.ComicsWikipedia:WikiProject ComicsTemplate:WikiProject ComicsComics articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Canada on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CanadaWikipedia:WikiProject CanadaTemplate:WikiProject CanadaCanada-related articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chicago, which aims to improve all articles or pages related to Chicago or the Chicago metropolitan area.ChicagoWikipedia:WikiProject ChicagoTemplate:WikiProject ChicagoChicago articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
This article has been viewed enough times in a single year to make it into the Top 50 Report annual list. This happened in 2016, when it received 19,435,260 views.
This article has been viewed enough times in a single week to appear in the Top 25 Report13 times. The weeks in which this happened:
The many supporters being crowded in just one reference, currently Nr 197, lead to some of them only showing up if the edit function is opened. The support by the DC directors Gunn, Snyder, and Yan is for example now hidden despite being part of that large reference.
The academy-winning makeup artist Alessandro Bertolazzi also supports the movement. Does anyone have a good source in his case?
Organized social media campaigns to release the Ayer Cut are older than 2021. The largest one from 2020: https://twitter.com/RTAyerCutSS/status/1285540352775065600
What went wrong behind the scenes of the 2016 release and the fan movement to release Ayer´s cut have received international coverage and keep being covered by Hollywood trades. A separate article like the production of Justice League 2017 received might be a good idea in the future. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Production_of_Justice_League_(film)
Pretty much every single site said that Will Smith was great as Deadshot. Yet in the top of the article, it only said that Robbie's performance was praised. Is there a chance that the tidbit can add in Smith's performance as praised? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aagaash2015 (talk • contribs) 00:23, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The Critical response section was loaded with praise for Margot Robbie[1] and still is. It is only right that the intro summarize what is actually contained in the Critical response section WP:LEDE. The article has since been changed to remove the praise for Robbie from the intro.
If you think the Critical response section or intro is placing WP:UNDUE emphasis on Robbie that is another matter. Praise for Smith could be added too, but anyone is going to make claims like "every single site" said something then they should back that up with at least a few examples.
Anyways, it isn't exactly high praise to be the best peanut in the poop. -- 109.77.194.110 (talk) 22:44, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think additional content would need to be added to the critical reception section to support adding additional content to the lead. Every source currently cited about Robbie's performance in the article also mentions other characters (particularly Leto and Smith) or is about the character rather than Robbie's performance. Given that Robbie has now starred in other movies as well as the only character in the sequel, maybe something that discusses that aspect would be more beneficial to add? – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 22:54, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the Critical response section is missing much. Considering the film won an Oscar, the only thing I would maybe try and add, is praise for the costume design, or possibly other technical aspects of the film (although there is a risk that would be damning with faint praise "it's in color. And, it was mostly in focus."). If I was going to do that I would go to Metacritic reread at least a few of the top critics to try and reframe my view of the film and see if there was anything else that this article has not given due attention. (Personally I think Smith was fine, and dont recall him receiving particular praise, certainly not as much as Robbie. The suggestions that film would have benefited from more of Jared Leto's Joker (JLJ) are bizarre and make no sense to me but I acknowledge at least some people did see it that way. I think they were given undue attention but I don't think it is worth the effort to try and balance it out with critics who disliked JLJ.[2]) I'm unlikely to even try to make further changes anytime soon. I'm surprised I've spent as much time editing this article as I have done, as I said I thought the film was poop, and I mostly enjoy using it as another example of a Oscar winning film that is terrible. -- 109.77.194.110 (talk) 00:06, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The Oscar for Best Makeup and Hairstyling is already mentioned in the lead, and I do not see any reason for adding "costume design" (which is a separate Oscar category). I also do not think picking and choosing words from various reviews is useful or supported by the WP:V policy. Rotten Tomatoes gives a general summary, and I used that for the lead. I personally don't think even that is needed in the lead, but at least it is a sourced summary of reviews. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 00:34, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, dynamic IP(151.44.28.83—151.68.213.150—151.68.170.51), you need to cite a source that actually says something like "a move resulted, however, in a controversy amongst Harley Qunn - either the original and the film's version - and comic book fans" or "a move resulted, however, in a big backlash from the fans". The NME article currently cited doesn't say anything like that. Also, proofreading your work for proper spelling and grammar would be nice too. DonQuixote (talk) 04:09, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
