Talk:Spider-Man: One More Day/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
This article is in great shape; I only have two minor things and then I think it's ready for GA status!

Under Plot:

• "Mary Jane whispers an offer to Mephisto in return for removing the knowledge of Peter's identity from the world." I've not read the story myself so I'm not sure, but do we ever find out what MJ whispers to Mephisto? Or is that left deliberately vague and unanswered?

Images:

• Any way we could get a scan from within the comic itself? Maybe a page or a few panels of a climatic moment involving Peter and MJ dealing with Mephisto or something like that?

--Hunter Kahn (talk) 20:06, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

On the plot - as far as I understand it (and I have been trying to clarify the aspects of the other bits of the deal) what she whispers is a request for Mephisto to remove everyone's memory that Spider-Man revealed his identity to the world during the Civil War events. I suspect that might just need rewording although it might be worth it if we can track down information on what was offered in return for this (as it seems a bit of an extra - unless he was running a two-for-one deal that day).

On the images - perhaps one of the lady in red (who turns out to be significant) or Mephisto doing his magic. (I'll see if I can't scare up someone who can pull out some alternatives). (Emperor (talk) 20:59, 22 February 2009 (UTC))

Maybe this image? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 21:31, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Looks perfect to me. Can we source it appropriately? Hiding T 22:26, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I haven't read the comic, but from what I gathered from reading the Quesada interviews, it seems that what MJ whispered to the big M is as yet unrevealed, and part of Joe's secret plot for world domination. ;) BOZ (talk) 01:51, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

The image has been added and I've had a crack at clarifying the text. Thoughts? (Emperor (talk) 15:22, 23 February 2009 (UTC))

• I think the new image looks fantastic; I may propose a tweak on the MJ thing, but I may also leave it as is. Just wanted to let every one know that as per my discussion with BOZ, I've purchased a copy of One More Day that includes an afterward from Stan Lee and an interview with Quesada that isn't currently sourced in this article. Before I pass this GAN, I'm going to take some time to review them, add any new info to this article, then give everyone the chance to look at my changes and share your thoughts. Other than that, I think this thing is ready for GA status. Thanks for your patience! --Hunter Kahn (talk) 23:35, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
  • I'm fine with that. Stan Lee's perspective would be interesting and I'm happy to wait for it if it is pretty a pass on hold while you add in some information and we give it a final once over. That means we can focus our efforts elsewhere (Fantastic Four and Silver Age of Comic Books I presume). Thanks for the help and input, and for going above the call of duty and picking up the hardcover (I'm not sure I could bring myself to grab the comics from a bargain bin having read the reviews ;) ). (Emperor (talk) 03:57, 24 February 2009 (UTC))
    • Thanks. As depressing as it was to read MJ and Parker's marriage dissolve, it was kinda fun reading Spider-Man again; I hadn't read regularly in years and years.

New possible changes

• So, I've placed my would-be additions below. I didn't want to just drop them in the article without showing them to you guys; some of this you might already have known and just didn't deem worth to put in. Let me know what you think should be used, if anything, and you can either add it or tell me and I'll add it:

This would probably go right at the beginning of Publication history, if we use it:

• Marvel Comics editor-in-chief Joe Quesada, and others at Marvel Comics, felt dissolving the Peter/MJ marriage and returning Peter Parker to his roots was necessary to preserve the longevity of the character for the next 20 or 30 years. Quesada said he and other previous editors-in-chief had been long seeking an opportunity to begin a new methodology in which to tell Spider-Man stories, but had not found a reasonable way to do so. Quesada said, "It's very easy to un-marry a character, or fix something like that: you just do a huge universal retcon, and say a few events in history didn't happen. But that's really not the way we do it here at Marvel." The Marvel team found their opportunity in the events of the 2007 Civil War mini-series, which resulted in the unmasking of Spider-Man's identity to the public. Quesada knew J. Michael Straczynski was planning to end his run as a Marvel writer, so he personally approached Straczynski to propose One More Day as his final project.

This would probably go somewhere else in the Publication history section, if we use it:

• Quesada, who had become more selective in choosing projects to do as an artist since becoming editor-in-chief, said he felt compelled to do the art for One More Day because he felt very close to the story, and because since he had been talking about the project for so long, he felt he "needed to put my money where my mouth is.

Random tidbit, probably also for Publication history, if we use it:

• Quesada also described One More Day as an emotional climax of sorts and resolution for the relationship between Peter Parker and Tony Stark, who had developed a father-son-like bond during Civil War; however, Quesada hinted the paths of the two characters could cross again in the future due to planned storylines for Iron Man.

Stan Lee's thoughts, for Reception:

• Stan Lee praised the storyline and what he perceived as the courage its writers and creators showed in so drastically changing a popular and well-established character. Lee said changes are needed to keep a series fresh and compared the criticism from fans to the backlash Marvel received when Peter Parker and Mary Jane Watson married in the first place.

CITATION TO USE ABOVE: <ref>{{cite book |title="Spider-Man: One More Day" |last1=Lee |first1=Stan |authorlink1=Stan Lee |last2=Straczynski |first2=J. Michael |authorlink2=J. Michael Straczynski|last3=Quesada |first3=Joe |authorlink3=Joe Quesada |edition=hardcover |year=2008 |publisher=[[Marvel Comics]] |location=[[New York City]] |language=English |isbn=0785126333 |url= }}</ref>

Let me know what you guys think and what we should use in the article. Thanks! --Hunter Kahn (talk) 16:31, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

That all seems good (I fixed one typo) but I'd want more specific referencing as the bits seem to refer to different people saying things, where are the Quesada quotes coming from?. Also that reference might be misleading as Stan Lee didn't write the book, I'd suggest using: Lee, Stan (2008) Afterword, in Straczynski and Quesada. Then reference the volume separately. Just clarify the origins of the quotes and statements on motivation and it all seems fine, although it might need a quick tweak to make sure the section flows properly once the material is added. (Emperor (talk) 16:49, 24 February 2009 (UTC))

Those all seem fine to use. For the first one though, it would probably require some trimming from both that and the text that's already in the article so I wouldn't just copy/paste that one. BOZ (talk) 05:22, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

• OK, I added the info and made the citations more specific. Please look over where I inserted them and feel free to make suggestions or changes.
• One other thing...should we have the Plot section before Publication History? I know it seems to make more sense to have Plot later due to chronological order, but in most movie-related articles, the plot comes first, and it kinda makes sense to me that way. I don't know if there's a standard when it comes to comic book-related articles or not. Thoughts? --Hunter Kahn (talk) 15:07, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Yes that all looks good and the section still flows well and it tells the story in an easy to understand way while imparting plenty of information (it is n important part of Spider-Man's history so it is good that we can provide enough background to help explain why it happened and those additions really work well). It all looks good to me and I'm happy with it and can't see anything that needs major work.
  • The PH usually always comes above the plot (see WP:CMC/X as it puts the story in context and while there may be exceptions I don't see this as being one. There is an outline of the plot in the lead so people aren't going to be left wondering what they are talking about. (Emperor (talk) 15:45, 25 February 2009 (UTC))
    • One thing I'd like to nail down. One description of the collection says it also includes Marvel Spotlight: Spider-Man - One More Day/Brand New Day - is that right? The hardcover contains and interview with JMS and the Stan Lee afterword - are there any other extras? Am I right to think it also contains the Sketchbook. Also are the contents of the softcover the same (and yes someone could just quickly flick through it in a bookstore if need be :) ). I checked the catalogue at marvel and found the softcover/hardcover volumes if this is any help: Softcover, Softcover (direct market), hardcover and hardcover (direct market). Not a problem the GA review just something that arose from the addition of the recent material. (Emperor (talk) 16:18, 25 February 2009 (UTC))
      • I'm not sure if I'm understanding your question correctly, Emperor, but as far as my hardcover edition here goes, it includes the afterword, about eight pages or so of some art and of the comic book covers (although it isn't labelled "Sketchbook") and it includes the two interviews I sited (John Rhett Thomas talking to Quesada and Chris Arrant talking to Staczynski) which it says are "from Marvel Spotlight: Spider-Man: One More Day -- Brand New Day." I obviously don't know about the paperback edition. Does this answer your question? --Hunter Kahn (talk) 23:39, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
        • That's what I wanted. I've updated the article and it is good to go. (Emperor (talk) 02:15, 26 February 2009 (UTC))

I'm pretty happy with how the article looks, now. If we can get these last few questions resolved, I'm confident that should put it over the top! BOZ (talk) 17:35, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

• Also, I looked back in the story again just to be sure, but Mephisto actually agreed to erase knowledge of Parker's identity BEFORE MJ whispered her secret deal to him. It was AFTER Mephisto already agreed to erase knowledge of the identity that MJ stopped him and asked him to make Parker's life exactly the same as it was before and give him a chance at happiness, in exchange for whatever she whispered. I tried to change the plot to reflect this, please look at it and let me know if that works. --Hunter Kahn (talk) 23:47, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Yep works for me - good stuff. (Emperor (talk) 01:19, 26 February 2009 (UTC))

Thanks - it helps to have someone who has actually read it to edit the plot. :) Much better! BOZ (talk) 01:54, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Images

I added images of Quesada and J. Michael Straczynski to the article. They're free, so it ups the image count and keeps us within the non-free policy. The text can be tweaked however people want. I've tried to place them so they break the text up, Quesada's especially since we had no image at the bottom of the page. Hiding T 12:55, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

My only thought is that it works better if images are "looking" into the page so possibly switch the two? (Emperor (talk) 15:45, 25 February 2009 (UTC))

I moved Quesada over to the left, I think that works better with the scene from the comic being on the right just above it anyway. Thoughts? Hiding T 16:07, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Looks good; thanks! BOZ (talk) 17:34, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Bingo!! (Emperor (talk) 18:00, 25 February 2009 (UTC))

A good article is:

1. Well-written: Prose is good, MOS is good.
2. Factually accurate and verifiable: Sources are good, no original research.
3. Broad in its coverage: Covers main aspects, no unneeded detail.
4. Neutral: Yes.
5. Stable: Yes.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by images: Yes.

Pass. --Hunter Kahn (talk) 02:42, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Woohoo! :) Thanks for the review. BOZ (talk) 02:52, 26 February 2009 (UTC)