Talk:Spider-Man/GA1

GA Review[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Hi, I am beginning the review of this article for GA and will be listing my comments here. —Mattisse (Talk) 22:28, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This article is overwhelmingly comprehensive, especially under "Publication history" > "Creation". Is all this detail necessary? Or is there a way of presenting it in a way that can be absorbed by the general reader?
These wikilinks need disambiguation:

Tween

Got it. BOZ (talk) 02:21, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Spider-Man: The Other

Already done? BOZ (talk) 02:21, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This article is over wikilinked. Please read MOS:LINK#Overlinking_and_underlinking. In general, a word or term should be wikilinked only at the first mention, maybe twice if the next mention is far away in the article body. Also, common words that would be known by English speaking readers should not be wikikinked.

As mentioned, already handled by Hiding. BOZ (talk) 03:27, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I also wonder if the headings are correct for the content.
Publication history
- Creation
- Commercial success
- Fictional character biography
Power and equipment
Enemies
Supporting characters
Cultural impact
In other media

As far as I understand it, these headers are fairly standard and most of them are in common use on WikiProject Comics articles using its own exemplars. I'm not sure what else we would call them. :) BOZ (talk) 03:27, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The usual "Critical reaction" or something similar is missing. I realize that it follows the structure of Batman (FA in 2004) and Superman (FAR 2007) but it needs focusing and perhaps updating.

True. I'm not sure what I can add to build that up. Do you mean like a finding an actual review, where someone will say "I thought this comic was... In my opinion this character seems to be..." like that sort of thing? To be honest, I'm not sure what to do to find this sort of content, and am kind of hoping for other people to help out and pitch in. :) If it's up to me alone to get this one ready for GA, I've probably bitten off more than I can chew. ;) BOZ (talk) 03:27, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, there are whole sections that are not referenced, like the whole "Powers and equipment" section and almost all of "In other media".

—Mattisse (Talk) 22:28, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Condensed and added a source to the powers: I'm about to condense the Media, but a source will still be forthcoming (hopefully). BOZ (talk) 02:21, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Your references are in disarray. You need to use a uniform reference format that includes publisher, pages numbers and access date (if a web reference) and ISBN if a book. See Reliable sources, Citing sources, Footnotes. You are already using templates for the Reference section. See Citations of generic sources. This is very important.

—Mattisse (Talk) 22:39, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just want to be clear that this is a Good Article review and not a Featured Article review, because consistency of reference style is not typically a cause to fail a Good Article, certainly not in my experience and not based on the criteria, or the review guidelines. Hiding T 15:56, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've reformatted the refs; please leave a note on my talk page if there's still any trouble with them. Thanks! -Drilnoth (talk) 00:42, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That is much much better. Probably more should be under "Cultural impact - all the innovations in sidekick stuff, etc. mentioned somewhere above. However, I am hesitant to say this article does not meet GA, although imperfect. —Mattisse (Talk) 01:02, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Publication history[edit]

I think there was something of a feeling that the Publication history could actually be more detailed and expanded. :) I'll see if there's a way that I could simplify it further. Also, I think Hiding reduced the overlinking fairly well. I'll have a look into the rest as I can. BOZ (talk) 23:36, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with overall I would like to see more detail in the publication history, as well as critical impact especially. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 01:09, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I guess you are right that more detail in the publication history is wanted. Perhaps if you organize it so the general reader doesn't get lost. Critical impact I agree needs more. (I had asked the editor to eliminate some of it, but you are saying the opposite?) —Mattisse (Talk) 02:29, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not talking about "in pop culture" mentions as much as I'm talking about the impact it had on comics; it created a new breed of heroes, legitimized teens as superheroes (where they had initially be sidekicks, et al. There's several books used as refs or called at least once which could be used for some of that info, but there's plenty out there, ex. http://books.google.com/books?id=_iYL9qTMu1EC&pg=PA212&dq=spider-man+cultural+impact --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 02:59, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The new breed of heroes etc. sounds very relevant for "Critical impact". What I asked the editor to condense was a lot of detail on how the original concept was developed among several people. It was rather confusing as there were so many different names and lines of argument involved. If you think this was a mistake on my part, please look at a recent version in the history, before the editor condensed. I would not want valuable information left out because of my suggestions. —Mattisse (Talk) 03:40, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think the extra detail is needed, but it might need reorganization. The problem is the creation has taken on a sort of life of its own; there's Stan Lee's version of it, Stan Lee's remembered version of Stan Lee's version of it, disgruntled artist version of it, not quite as disgruntled artist version of it... it's a messy remembrance. Perhaps it should be segregated into the "official" story, with contrast from Ditko, Kirby? I'm not sure. It might just need more sort of "say it slowly" sentences so that people who don't know as much about the comic can follow along easier. You're right the balance is off though--there's more for the creation of the character than the 40+ years that came after in the rest of publication history. There's been two reboots of the franchise, and according to sources at the New York Comic-Con he's about to be spun off to a new label; there's lots to talk about. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 03:48, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree with that. It was very confusing to me (Stan Lee's remembered version of Stan Lee's version of it, disgruntled artist version of it, not quite as disgruntled artist version of it...) but if this is part of the important "lore" or history, then if it can be put in a form that can be followed by readers like me, that would be fine. —Mattisse (Talk) 04:32, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll absolutely confess that my first few times reading it definitely confused me as well, and it took a few read-throughs to make sense of it. :) Maybe a more obvious flow would be Lee's version first (he got the impetus to make a character, took his idea to Goodman, Goodman agrees, talks with Kirby, then works with Ditko), then the involved Kirby's rebuttal, then the uninvolved Simon's rebuttal? Having Kirby refuting Lee right off in the first paragraph is probably what throws people off, so some reorganization might be sufficient. I can give that a try, and we'll see. BOZ (talk) 15:15, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If that's not better, just let me know. :) BOZ (talk) 15:47, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

References[edit]

What should we do with the ones like "Web of Spider-Man #1 (April 1985)"? Should we use Template:Cite comic? Or maybe just "Web of Spider-Man #1 (April 1985) New York, NY: Marvel Comics? This looks nice:Conway, Gerry (w), Kane, Gil (p), Romita Sr., John (i). "The Death of Gwen Stacy" The Amazing Spider-Man, vol. 1, no. 121–122 (June–July 1973). New York, NY: Marvel Comics. Although I don't know if we know all the writers and whatnot. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 20:58, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This site is very comprehensive for writers, artists, cover dates, and more. I can definitely help with mining for that data. BOZ (talk) 21:01, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So his first appearance would look like this: Lee, Stan (w), Ditko, Steve (p). Amazing Fantasy, vol. 1, no. 15 (August 1962). New York, NY: Marvel Comics.? I omitted the inker because Ditko did both, and the story because it apparently had no title per [1]. If this is the way we're going forward, I'll start fixing up the comic issue references with this format. BOZ (talk) 22:37, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It has an artist field that assigns inking and pencilling to the same person. That's a trivial criticism. In general, what you did looks great. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 23:15, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Final GA review (see here for criteria)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): Well written b (MoS): Follows MoS
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): Well referenced b (citations to reliable sources): Sources are reliable c (OR): No OR
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): Sets the context b (focused): Remains focused on subject
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias: NPOV
It is stable.
No edit wars etc.:
It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

A wonderful article, if imperfect. Congratulations!

—Mattisse (Talk) 01:06, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, awesome! :) Thanks for the review. It looks like we have quite a bit to fix before trying to get this one to FA! BOZ (talk) 20:07, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]