Talk:Peacemaker (character)/GA1

GA review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Nominator: Pokelego999 (talk · contribs) 20:00, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

Reviewer: ErnestKrause (talk · contribs) 14:22, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

Comments on Peacemaker

Something to get things started. I'll await your completion of the review for Kpop as previously discussed before continuing with this evaluation:

(1) Lede starting paragraph seems a little long and could be shortened a little. The first sentence starts by mentioning the transition to DC Comics where you state: “acquired by DC Comics...“. You then seem to restate this with the words: “after DC Comics’ acquisition… “. Reduce by 1-2 sentences in this first paragraph if possible.

• Tried shortening this. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 19:59, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

• Nice start. I think its even better if you do not mention Carlton Comics twice in that first paragraph. in the lede; even a little shorter would be nice. ErnestKrause (talk) 21:21, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

  Do you have a suggestion for how you would shorten it? I am not sure how you would trim it down further from how it is presently. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 22:46, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

• Current version of second sentence in first paragraph reads: "The character originally had a short-lived comic run under Charlton, but was revived under DC Comics, with this revival changing Smith's character, depicting him as a violent vigilante haunted by the ghosts of his past."
• Consider this shorter version: "When DC Comics revived the character they changed Smith's character, depicting him as...". That's a little shorter. Also you can merge para2 and para3 in the lede into one paragraph, which results in a 2 paragraph lede. ErnestKrause (talk) 17:56, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

  Incorporated the shortened wording. I feel the three para lead is a bit more helpful for readability than the two para, though this is largely just personal preference of my own. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 22:32, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

• The lede is normally thought of as being concise as a summary for the article and have the appearance of being concise. The 3 paragraph version looks like its unnecessarily spread out with two very small paragraphs ending the lede, following a fairly well-written and substantial first paragraph. Try it on your edit preview page in its two paragraph version and maybe you'll agree. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:06, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

(1.1) ‘Modern Comics’ is mentioned in the Infobox, though it is not mentioned in the article. Needs to be mentioned somewhere in the main body.

• I missed this; Modern is barely mentioned in sources and seems to have been a minor publisher in the grand scheme of things, so I've elected to remove it. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 19:59, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

(2) Your distinction of pre-crisis and post-crisis needs to pause and state explicitly what the Crisis is all about as soon as possible for the sake of new readers coming to this article.

• I've added a brief description at the start of Post-Crisis's section. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 19:59, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

• It would be nice to see it as the first sentence of the pre-Crisis subheading, something like: "The character is strongly associated with a personal Crisis involving his learning the true tainted history of his father." Something like that, then followed by the rest of the material there for the 2 crisis sections. ErnestKrause (talk) 17:56, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

  This history with his father is a post-crisis addition; pre-crisis did not involve this. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 22:33, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

• I can see that you want to follow the strict chhronology of events. It seems that this can be solved by changing the subheadings to "Early life" followed by "Crisis". The difficult is that the use of the word "Pre-crisis" is problem-loaded by its wording. It gives a name to that section while the term is still undefined until the reader gets to a later subsequent subheading. The issue goes away when the first subheading is called "Early life" and the next section is called "Crisis". Give it a try since it looks ok in my preview box. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:06, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

  Will get around to your other comments later, but clarifying on this point: The two headings follow a different continuity while being set in the same narrative. The Post-Crisis changes to his character (Namely the bits about his dad, the ghosts haunting him, etc) were not present in the initial, Pre-Crisis version of the character. TLDR is Pre-Crisis is how Smith was initially characterized, while the Post-Crisis is still the same character, but with a changed backstory, if that makes sense, hence the separation. It wouldn't make sense to cover these retcons when they were not fundamentally a part of the original character. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 18:05, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

• Clarifying the point. I'm not sure that's what I meant. At present, the 'crisis' is only defined in the current Post-crisis section. However, you name the Pre-crisis section withoug defining what the crisis is first; readers only see the definition you give after they read through the Post-crisis section. The issue goes away if you name the first section "Early life" and the second section "Crisis", since you define what the Crisis is in the second section. Hope that helps. ErnestKrause (talk) 23:35, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

  If I understand what you mean I could move the Crisis definition to the Pre-Crisis section? That should clarify things a bit better while retaining the split. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 21:05, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

• Yes, that was the first option that I indicated for this issue as Option 1. If you move your definition of the Crisis into the Pre-Crisis section, then you don't need to change the subheading titles (which was Option 2). Separately, are you any closer to coming to a decision about the Kpop article? If you could move it forward in someway then I could start thinking about making a printout of your nomination here for a full read-through this week-end. Any comments for the Kpop article at its review? ErnestKrause (talk) 15:42, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

(3) You state later that ”Charlton Comics later went out of business.“ Which is followed by an acquisition by DC Comics. This wording might be enhanced as in specifying if this was a bankruptcy, or a retirement of the owners, or insolvency because of debt problems, or did they negotiate a sale of their product lines in their Comics prior to closing their doors. Some type of elaboration is needed here.

• Sources relating to Peacemaker don't really clarify why, and why Charlton went out of business isn't really important to understanding the character, so I'm not sure this is really needed. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 19:59, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

• The Wikipedia article for Carlton Comics states: "By the 1980s, Charlton was in decline. The comic-book industry was in a sales slump, struggling to reinvent a profitable distribution and retail system. Charlton's licensed titles lapsed, its aging presses were deteriorating towards uselessness, and the company did not have the resources to replace them. In 1981, yet another attempt was made at new material, with a comic-book version of Charlton Bullseye serving as a new-talent showcase that actively solicited submissions by comic-book fans, and an attempt at new Ditko-produced titles. A number of 1970s-era titles were also reprinted under the Modern Comics imprint and sold in bagged sets in department stores (in much the same way Gold Key Comics were published under the Whitman Comics moniker around the same time). None of these measures worked, and in 1984, Charlton Comics suspended publication." That suggests that the sale of the Peacemaker character was not related to the success/unsuccessfull nature of the character, but that it was just a business failure. I was interested in knowing which one it was, unsuccessfull character, or, business failure. ErnestKrause (talk) 17:56, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

  Ah I see what you mean now. Let me know if you want something related to this included in the article or not. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 22:35, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

• No more than 1-2 sentences is needed for this. There are also 2-3 RS in the main article to back up the text which I quoted above from the main article for Carlton. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:06, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

(4) Your phrasing in this same section then goes on to state: “…planned to feature characters taken from…“. If it was a failed plan or an unsuccessful plan then its usually best to state this fact at the start of the paragraph. Could you add a word or two about this at the start of that paragraph.

• It's already said at the start of the paragraph with the current phrasing. I'm confused what you mean here. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 19:59, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

(5) There were two versions of Suicide Squad to come out of Hollywood which in the lede you take care of by using the dating convention in parentheses as: The Suicide Squad (2021). That’s a good solution, though you don’t follow up with it in all parts of the article. It should be consistent from top to bottom in the article to state this date for the version.

• The 2021 film is titled uniquely from the first one, but you are correct is should have the year at the first mention so it's clear what film is discussed. Added. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 19:59, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

• The ambiguity is with this Wikipedia link here: Suicide Squad (2016 film). See #6 below since I'm still interested in why Peacemaker was chosen for inclusion in the 2021 version but not in the 2016 version; if you know then great, if not then this is optional. It might be nice to see something more which mentions the ambiguity of the names of the two separate films. ErnestKrause (talk) 21:14, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

(6) To avoid the problem discussed in (5) above, then it might be useful to mention that the character was excluded from the first version. Possibly there are RS available which describe how the characters were chosen for the first version, and why Peacemaker did not make the final list.

• I feel this isn't really necessary since Peacemaker was not considered nor discussed in relation to the first film. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 19:59, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

• I'm sort of asking if Peacemaker was added in the 2021 version because some of the characters died in the first 2016 version. Was he a replacement character in 2021 compared to the 2016 version? Was it just director's preference in casting the 2021 film? ErnestKrause (talk) 21:18, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

  As stated before, he was not discussed at all in regards to the first film, and I wasn't able to find an exact reason why Peacemaker was included in the second film beyond what's presently in the article. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 22:42, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

(6.1) I’m not sure how much time Comic book retailers spend on separating their “R” rated materials from the comics that are available to children of all ages. Is there anything more to be said about children getting access to materials which they may be reading about LGBT preferences and heightened eroticism? Have parents said anything? Have any parent groups lodged complaints against anybody when 6-7 year olds start looking at pictorial depictions of various types of eroticism? It doesn’t sound like Walt Disney’s Bambi or something like that; it seems to have an intended edge to it.

• I'm a bit confused by what you're asking about here? Peacemaker is an adult-oriented series and from my research I found nothing relating to how children view his character, so there's nothing I can really add in the regards you mention above. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 19:59, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

• It sounds like you are saying that there are restrictions on purchase of this comic as being 'adult' material. That would explain why children are not an issue. Do you know what the stated restriction says? Is it printed on the cover of the comic book? For example, "Do not sell to under 17 years old". ErnestKrause (talk) 21:10, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

  This is in reference to the television series; in terms of the comics there's not much I can find on Peacemaker and if there's an age restriction or what have you. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 22:43, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

(7) In Critical reception you speak of his ‘early popularity’ but you don’t mention when and for whom. Was it popularity with Carlton, or was it early popularity with DC Comics a little later on? Clarify if possible.

• This is meant to refer to his first years of existence under Charlton. I've clarified this. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 19:59, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

(7.1) Its optional, though I’ll mention that your cite formats are currently mixed between prose format and capitalized-format. It show some care if you could choose one format or the other and to be consistent. This is optional, though it make the cite section look better.

• What do you mean by Prose and Capitalized? I'm unfamiliar with the terminology. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 19:59, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

• For example, footnote 26 is in all cap titles here: "Harth, David (May 11, 2025). "Absolute Superman Tease Brutally Rewrites The Origin Of An Iconic DC Villain". ComicBook.com. Retrieved November 18, 2025."

• However, footnote 50 is in prose format with lower case preference here: "McMahon, James (March 25, 2022). "Why 'Peacemaker' is the superhero franchise we need right now". NME. Retrieved August 10, 2025". ErnestKrause (talk) 21:06, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

  That is how the sources were written title-wise originally, and is not a particular choice on my part. I see no reason why this would need to be changed. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 22:44, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

• As I mentioned, this is optional for GAN; however it is necessary if you plan improvements for FAC in the future. ErnestKrause (talk) 17:46, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

  I don't intend to go past GAN in the case of this article, but I'll keep it in mind if I ever do try for FAC in the future. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 22:35, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

(8) Concluding with the Critical reception section seems to leave the reader a little bit short. It would be nice to have a closing section which mentions the future of the character and prospects for sequels. You do mention the new second TV season which is fine, though, for example, is there going to be a sequel? Same question for the film version; is Suicide Squad (2021) going to get a sequel? Same question for the print version of the comic book releases; is it thriving or is it all to be canceled as being superseded by the film and TV versions?

• That information is usually not included in characters articles. Character articles typically do not include information about upcoming appearances unless they're confirmed and typically that only is covered in Appearances. Speculative information such as potential appearances or cancellations are not included and only mentioned if outright confirmed. Currently nothing is on the slate bar comics and there's not really many sources covering Peacemaker's comic appearances outside of what's in the article already, as all of that is still ongoing across multiple titles. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 19:59, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

• I thought there might be news about a sequel to the 2021 film, though I did not see anything about it. ErnestKrause (talk) 17:56, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

  Nothing on a sequel as of now unfortunately. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 22:36, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

That should get things started. ErnestKrause (talk) 14:22, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

• @ErnestKrause: Admittedly a bit confused by some comments so would appreciate clarity on some points. Incorporated a few where possible though, let me know what else I can do. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 19:59, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

• Some added comments above. ErnestKrause (talk) 21:19, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

• Hi Pokelego999; Added some more suggestions above and I'm inclining toward seeing the article move forward. Separately, I've left some comments for you at KPop if you have a chance to look at them. ErnestKrause (talk) 17:56, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

  @ErnestKrause responded above and responded at KPop. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 22:36, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

• Two or three more comments above. Article is looking better. Let me know when ready. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:06, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

  @ErnestKrause addressed your two quibbles, let me know how this looks. Apologies about the wait on K-Pop, been busy the past few days. I'll get to leaving a few comments shortly. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 05:03, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

Getting closer now. I don't think they are really quibbles, as much as trying to get this passage into the best possible shape. Could you approach this edit straight on. First sentence of 'Pre-crisis' section to read: "Prior to his Crisis, Christopher Smith was acting as an envoy and diplomat of the "Geneva Arms Conference", and as a pacifistic diplomat so committed to peace that he is willing to use force as a superhero to advance the cause. His character would change after his Crisis in which he discovers the nefarious truth about his father's true identity." Or something like that; could you hit this matter squarely and up front. I'm sort of ready to do a final read through on this, and ping me when its ready for a final read through. ErnestKrause (talk) 21:48, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

@ErnestKrause the Crisis and the father's identity stuff are not related to the Pre-Crisis version of the character. Put it simply, the Pre-Crisis version does not have these aspects as part of his backstory at all. The Post-Crisis version has a different backstory from the original that covers the deal with his father, but this does not happen Pre-Crisis. The Crisis in question was not related directly to him and instead was an event that rebooted the entire universe and changed the continuity, hence why Smith has a different backstory in the Post-Crisis not present in the Pre-Crisis. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 01:36, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

Those details are significant, since you are stating that the 'Crisis' is your own personal shorthand for the full name 'Crisis on Infinite Earths', rather than a reference to his discovery of his father's nefarious background. In that case, if it is your shorthand, then I'm not sure its your best choice. The section subheading should spell this out as either the "Pre-Crisis on Infinite Earths version", followed by the "Crisis of the Infinite Earths version". Otherwise, you could just call if the 'Carlton Comics version' followed by the 'DC Comics version.' The RS you are using also does not use your abbreviation anywhere in the RS which you cite. Calling it "Pre-Crisis" as your own prefered shorthand abbreviation for the full title is I think working against clarity here. Try to use the full name of the title. ErnestKrause (talk) 02:36, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

@ErnestKrause the Crisis distinctions are not my own personal shorthands and are what DC Comics articles tend to use, at least from the other articles I've seen. That being said I did a peruse around and some articles use your descriptions, so I'll alter those headings shortly. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 00:14, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

Those new subsection titles make a substantial improvement in clarity. Its impressive how much you have devoted to this topic. The prose is generally good, and the images are well chosen with good captions. I've already told you that if you go to FAC there are apt to be many more issues to address; however in terms of GAN it looks to have met the requirements. The article moves forward at this time, and good going. ErnestKrause (talk) 16:28, 6 December 2025 (UTC)