DZ
DefZone.Net

Kien thuc cong nghe & giai tri

  1. Home
  2. Wiki

Former good articleSpider-Man was one of the Language and literature good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
October 2, 2006Good article nomineeNot listed
February 21, 2007Good article nomineeNot listed
February 15, 2009Good article nomineeListed
September 26, 2009Peer reviewReviewed
August 29, 2023Good article reassessmentKept
October 13, 2024Good article reassessmentDelisted
Current status: Delisted good article

Community reassessment

[edit]

Spider-Man

[edit]

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)[reply]

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. TarantulaTM (speak with me) (my legacy) 21:41, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Correction: The article's last GA review was back in 2009, not 2014. TarantulaTM (speak with me) (my legacy) 01:18, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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

[edit]

Spider-Man

[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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.

Error in the "In other media" section

[edit]

There seems to be an error in the "In other media" section of the article, it correctly says that Tobey Maguire is on the left, but it incorrectly says that Andrew Garfield is in the center while Tom Holland is on the right, when in fact, it's the opposite way around. It is supposed to say that Tom Holland is in the center while Andrew Garfield is on the right. KennedyScottLeon (talk) 09:05, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Main protagonist

[edit]

Can one of you all edit Spider-Man as the main protagonist of the Marvel Universe soon? 2600:387:F:5C32:0:0:0:7 (talk) 20:17, 22 March 2025 (UTC)(Nota bene Blocked sockpuppet of Jinnifer, see investigation)[reply]

Do you have any reliable sources to support this assertion? Trailblazer101 (talk) 20:32, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Look him up everywhere including Fandom and he is the most successful superhero in film industry. Huluvbu (talk) 20:45, 22 March 2025 (UTC)(Nota bene Blocked sockpuppet of Jinnifer, see investigation)[reply]
It's what Wikipedia says. Huluvbu (talk) 20:49, 22 March 2025 (UTC)(Nota bene Blocked sockpuppet of Jinnifer, see investigation)[reply]
"most successful" in film is not the same as the "main protagonist" of a fictional universe, of which one could argue there are many. The films have nothing to do with this. Trailblazer101 (talk) 20:55, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well he has been in comics more times then any other hero saving the day the world with great power comes great responsibility. Huluvbu (talk) 20:58, 22 March 2025 (UTC)(Nota bene Blocked sockpuppet of Jinnifer, see investigation)[reply]
He's right. 166.194.158.23 (talk) 20:58, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Marvel has been focusing more on him and the Avengers. 166.194.158.23 (talk) 20:59, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Without any reliable sources to back up any of these claims, they cannot be added. Trailblazer101 (talk) 21:00, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Someone mind reverting this weird change? By no means is Spider-Man the "protagonist" of Marvel and the reasoning provided for the change is laughable. Abcidee (talk) 12:23, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Seriously? Again?! I've reverted them and reported the sock. Trailblazer101 (talk) 12:32, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
All of the accounts supporting the “main protagonist” view are LTA User:Jinnifer accounts and they’ve been trying to add this to numerous article for years. NJZombie (talk) 12:55, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I figured as much. That is why I have requested ECP for this article to prevent this LTA from being allowed to continue. Trailblazer101 (talk) 13:03, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In the future, you can report obvious Jinnifer accounts at WP:AIV as opposed to WP:SPI. They've been getting reported there for the past two years now due to the severity of their abuse. NJZombie (talk) 13:29, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, good to know. I was not immediately aware of that and only recently became aware of their actions. Trailblazer101 (talk) 13:41, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

[edit]

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)[reply]