Talk:JLA: Act of God

Criticism section
If anyone is wondering, I was trying to edit the Criticism section. I didn't mean to remove the heading so please don't get mad at me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jwhale9382 (talk • contribs) 02:16, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Speaking of the criticism section... Is the heavy emphasis around one internet reviewer really necessary? I mean, Linkara's alright, but he's not exactly Ebert or Roeper, you know? And in other pages on media, even big names like THEM don't get entire paragraphs written about their opinions for the most part- justa brief mention and then a general description of perceived faults in the story. Plus, the language used isn't exactly impartial, and literary merit is subjective (even if I agree that the story is illogical and unentertaining), so it should be. It also doesn't expand upon WHY the comic has idiot plot tendencies, how any characters were derailed other than the "reborn" heroes and Wonder Woman, the fact that all teh other superheroes ignore or forget teh absence of their magical friends (or that Wonder Woman and other magical heroes actually do remain present). or the absence of the Atlanteans. Furthermore, no detail is given to WHY Superman and Lois Lane's relationship dynamic and break-up are being ciriticized. Instead, the article just seems to monkey Linkara's criticisms without any actual depth... And really, a lot of his complaints can be adressed and mitigated, if not entirely countered, by the story's nature as an Elseworlds tale, which means that small or even large discrepancies in the behaviour, backstory, powers and personality of various heroes and villains can be explained away by this being an alternate universe with differnet takes on the characters. This factor should probably at least be MENTIONED in the criticism. I mean, if you're gonna' repeat his cmment that this comic is a love-letter to Batman, at least don't make this article a love-letter to Linkara.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.54.14.5 (talk) 19:39, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Grievences
While I love Linkara's show, I think the critisism section is just a mess. It lacks NPOV, it has nearly no sentance structure and, above all, it just copies from Linkara's review than it does compiles critical reception. I believe a full rewrite is in order. 66.31.76.134 (talk) 02:58, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Once again, the criticism section
So it's apparent that nothing has come of these discussions, even though they date back nearly a year ago. Can someone provide a good reason why an internet personality's opinion deserves mentioning? Is he a professional? Does he have credentials? Is he widely accepted as a legitimate critic? And besides, isn't he a fictional character? So why have this here? —Preceding unsigned comment added by BalanceFish (talk • contribs) 07:06, 7 May 2011 (UTC)