Often, the question will come up of exactly how much research you expect a writer to put in when they're doing a comic book, regarding past comic book stories.
I personally don't expect much research at all, except just the real general stuff, you know, just so as to not redo a storyline someone else did awhile ago (see "Hey, I bet Captain America is due a lot of back pay! What? Someone did that story 15 years ago? Oh well.").
Tim O'Neil, though, just the other day put forth the argument that a recent scene in Uncanny X-Men is either a sign that Cyclops is a skrull, or a sign that writer Ed Brubaker was being "lazy" in his researching.
So where would you put the scene Tim is discussing? Do you think a writer (and/or editor) should do enough research to avoid scenes like this (unless, as Tim also mentions, it IS, in fact, intended as a sign Cyclops is a skrull)? Or do you think it isn't fair to call a writer "lazy" for something like this?