Talk:Blue Beetle (film)

Soto image placement

The Soto image under the subheading Blue Beetle (film) § Development appears to be decorative rather than informational, and its current left‑aligned placement directly beneath a left‑aligned subheading creates an awkward visual break.

Some editors have preferred alternating (zig‑zag) image placement or positioning faces so they “look toward” the text, drawing on conventions from older (not contemporary) print layouts. However, those conventions don’t translate well to modern web design, and print designers typically avoid placing a left‑aligned image directly under a mid-page left‑aligned subheading because it creates visual collision, disrupts hierarchy, and can make the subheading resemble an image caption.

On Wikipedia, it is common practice to place a section’s image code directly below the subheading, but placing such images on the left is generally discouraged because it disrupts the downward scanning pattern of online readers. For web‑based reading—especially on mobile—left‑aligned images function like visual interruptions, making the article harder to scan and less predictable.

From the standpoint of readability, accessibility (including low‑vision users and assistive technology), and overall professionalism, a consistent vertical alignment of images on the right tends to produce a smoother reading experience.

Relevant sources discussing alignment and scanning efficiency:

• Kim Flaherty (November 26, 2017). "Zigzag Image–Text Layouts Make Scanning Less Efficient".
• Linux Code (November 2, 2023). "Craft Pixel-Perfect Website Layouts with CSS Alignment".
• Ad Ronin (August 14, 2024). "Fixing Alignment Issues on Websites: Theory, Best Practices, and Practical Solutions".

  ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 03:23, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

Nothing in MOS:IMAGELOC strictly precludes images being on the left side of pages. If it did, then this would be more strictly enforced and not applicable. I have checked on my mobile device, and this image does not disrupt the natural flow and readability of this section in mobile view. It also does not cause errors by indenting the paragraph and sentence structure in a way that would be illegible. It does not matter what third-party articles state regarding writing style because Wikipedia uses its own writing style, which does allow left-aligned as an image placement. It is up to editorial discretion. — Trailblazer¹⁰¹🔥 ^{(discuss · contribs)} 01:12, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• WB - DC - Blue Beetle - Movie Promotion - Releasing August 18.webm

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 03:08, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

GA review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Blue Beetle (film)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Yovt (talk · contribs) 13:58, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

Reviewer: Vestrian24Bio (talk · contribs) 13:57, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

Hi! I will be reviewing this article, expect the initial remarks soon! Vestrian24Bio 13:57, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

@Vestrian24Bio any updates on this review? It's been over a month since comments have been made here. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 21:08, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

Extremely sorry, been a bit busy month, but I have begun reviewing this article and will finish by next week. Vestrian24Bio 12:37, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

Will finish it in the coming week. Vestrian24Bio 10:21, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

Any progress on this? Rusted AutoParts 05:14, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

If not, then I think it would be best not to move forward with one at this time. I do plan on mulling through interview material to expand the article's scope and do some more copyediting in the future. Considering this was nominated almost a year ago, I think the article could benefit from some work and being re-nominated for review after that point. — Trailblazer¹⁰¹🔥 ^{(discuss · contribs)} 05:22, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

I will add that I know these reviews can be a bit overwhelming and tedious, and I have learned the hard way from some in the past. However, most GAs should not be nominated or up for review unless each party involved is 100% committed to the work, considering we all have a shared goal of improving the encyclopedia. No shade to anyone, though, of course. We all have other commitments come up. Cheers, — Trailblazer¹⁰¹🔥 ^{(discuss · contribs)} 05:25, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

@Trailblazer101: should I close the review now..? Vestrian24Bio 05:29, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

I would say so, as with another editor expressing concern about the article's eligibility due to the length between nomination and time review was started, the nominator themselves not editing on the article or appearing here to query about updates themselves, and on account you do seem a bit preoccupied at present time, it's best to suspend the review. Rusted AutoParts 06:04, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

I'll close it now; if any assistance/review is needed in future, let me know.. Vestrian24Bio 06:05, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

Final review

Good Article review progress box

Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV () 3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant () Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.