| This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
 | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Green Lantern edit
Green Lantern had become stale and boring, despite the fact that the Green Lantern comics were best-sellers before he became the editor, after which the quality and sales began plummeting
This particular line is at odds with the Emerald Twilight write-up:
The editorial decision to shake up the Green Lantern series was eventually justified by revitalized sales and critical acclaim for the series.
So, which is it? Or, given the sheer animosity that Silver-age Green Lantern fans hold towards Dooley, is it even known one way or another? 156.34.221.174 17:54, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
- Hal Jordan fans were the least of Dooley's troubles as an editor; his lack of competency is well-documented and, frankly, puzzling. Yet you have a good point. Claims about circulation numbers should at the very least have some clear source, so I am changing the article. Luis Dantas 10:40, 27 December 2006 (UTC)