Talk:Spider-Man

Community reassessment

Spider-Man

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: No consensus to delist. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:11, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

Recently, I've copyedited this article and edited fictional content into present tense. However, this article was promoted to GA status back in 2014, and the article looked vastly different to what it is now. This article may violate GAC criterion 2D, and the copyright violation report can be found here. Note that the top result is a fan site. I also feel that some of the images in the article violate criterion 6B, as the images may not have suitable captions. Tarantula^TM (speak with me) (my legacy) 21:41, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Correction: The article's last GA review was back in 2009, not 2014. Tarantula^TM (speak with me) (my legacy) 01:18, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

• On criterion 2D ("not plagarism" - side note, it's convenient to remind readers which criteria is which): The copyright violation report doesn't look remotely problematic to me. All of the top hits are bloggy sources that don't actually appear to be that close to the article and were published long after the article was made a GA, so they're just copying Wikipedia rather than Wikipedia copying them. For images, "suitable captions" is WP:SOFIXIT territory - I don't see what's so problematic with the existing captions, but if you have ideas to improve them, you should just go ahead & edit them in. Now, it's possible that the article isn't GA and/or just needs a refresher due to looking very different from the promoted version, but I'm not sold the problem, if any, is in image captions or in copyright violation. SnowFire (talk) 23:24, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
• Keep I made a quick check of the article and found no noticeable problems, and as pointed the reasons for delisting are rather weak. Cambalachero (talk) 16:05, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

GA Reassessment

Spider-Man

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: Delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:40, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

I propose delisting the Spider-Man article from "Good Article" status due to several important issues. Many sections lack proper references, and some have no citations at all, which affects the article's reliability. It also needs updates to include recent developments in the Spider-Man franchise. Additionally, the article is too long and would benefit from trimming or splitting into shorter sections. It also contains unnecessary trivia and original research that detract from its quality. For these reasons, I believe the Spider-Man article should be delisted until these problems are fixed. Lililolol (talk) 23:05, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

• Delist: same concerns as above. Nineteen Ninety-Four guy (talk) 09:35, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Adding some more clarification of Ditko and Kirby’s contributions to the character’s creation

The section on Spider-Man‘s creation does a very good job laying out the different sides of the story, and especially gives good coverage to the contributions of Ditko and Kirby.

I think it might be best to mention that ambiguity regarding the creation of the character, mainly as a way to introduce that the topic isn’t so cut and dry.

Bagabondo (talk) 19:24, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

Requested grammar fix

"Spider-Man's writers often describe him as an everyman who stands in from the average reader..."

This is nonsensical: it should read "stands in for". ~2026-65862 (talk) 10:02, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

 Done. The rest of the sentence from the same editor that he is also characterized it has also been argued that he is one of the first nerd heroes didn't make much sense either, so I've copyedited that too. Belbury (talk) 11:42, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

GA review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Spider-Man/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Wrangler1981 (talk · contribs) 00:28, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

Reviewer: Hawkeye7 (talk · contribs) 21:09, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

Picking this one up. There will be a delay while the Bot does its thing.... Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:36, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

General comments

• Article looks very good. Only a few minor sourcing issues.
• Best account of Spider-Man's creation I have read anywhere.
• "At the end of the decade, this costume was revealed to be an enemy symbiote which became a prominent new enemy, Venom... The creators then revealed the costume was an alien symbiote" A bit of repetition here. And "symbiote" should be linked on first use.
• Link Roy Thomas
• Obligatory typo: "exposore"
• Since the article is in American English, "metre" should be "meter".

Images

• All images are appropriately licensed.

Sources

• fn 3 7: Forty pages is a bit much. Can we substitute more precise references?
• fn 11, 140: page number?
• fn 155: Change equals sign to endash
• Sanderson (2022) is not used

I don't see a Sanderson (2022). There is a reference to Saunders (2022) and Sanderson (1998 and 2007), which appear in the article. Wrangler1981 (talk) 14:15, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

• Spot checks:

  fn 19, 150, 182, 203, 207 - okay

  fn 118: Not sure what this adds

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

2. Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose):

   C. It contains no original research:

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

Thank you. I can do this over the week. I appreciate your attention. Kind regards, Wrangler1981 (talk) 00:12, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

There's no rush. But I like to know someone will be working on it. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:16, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

I think I have fixed everything. I have a question about footnote #3, the Washington Post article. This seems fine to me? I might have misread your comment; could you help me?

My mistake. It is fn 7, Roy Thomas's Alter Ego article. The footnote says pp. 3-45. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:16, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

Thanks. I found the interview online, and added the correct page numbers. They were all pages 5-6. Wrangler1981 (talk) 18:38, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

Please let me know if I've overlooked anything. I've tried to address everything else. I had to track down the Ditko source and correct it, adding the correct page numbers. Wrangler1981 (talk) 17:26, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.