# Talk:Survival of the Fittest (The Spectacular Spider-Man)

I'm really glad that someone has taken the time to put together individual episode write-ups for SSM. Much like Futurama or The Venture Bros., the show is really densely written and definitely warrants full write-ups. However, the current write-up is filled with unnecessary and repetitive information, a lot of which doesn't even concern the episode itself, even more of which goes into excessive detail that you'd never see on other similar pages on Wikipedia. The Production and Reception sections in particular are fairly overwritten. The pages should concentrate more on pointing out details on episode itself, such as plot, first appearances, and perhaps comic reference notes. Jbetteridge (talk) 20:54, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your compliant. However, you are heavily mistaken. Per guidelines on WP:TV, pilot episodes (like this) are supposed to carry information on the development of the series and how the episode therefore came about. Also, what you listed at the end of you're most is inaccurate, as the main point of episode pages is to put Production and Reception info, while the plot it supposed to be as short as possible. Check out the guidelines and examples over at WP:EPISODE. Thanks, The Flash {talk} 16:10, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Survival of the Fittest (The Spectacular Spider-Man). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100102105926/http://ifmagazine.com/feature.asp?article=2707 to http://www.ifmagazine.com/feature.asp?article=2707
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:02, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

I'm putting this article on GAR for the same reason Interactions asked for FA status last year: the sources. It contains sources of dubious quality, such as If Magazine, Gargoyles: A Station Eight Fan Web Site, Comic Mix, and Ultimate Disney. Also, they haven't been consulted since 2009, so most of them are inactive, and this also violates another GA requirement: your sources must be functional. 181.204.42.146 (talk) 20:56, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

By the way, I've put a new URL for the IGN references that were inactive so this doesn't happen again. Anyway, the reason I put it on GAR is because of the shady sources. 181.204.42.146 (talk) 21:38, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
I removed the almost certainly permanent dead link, and changed the blurry image. The sources seem fine. Since they are interviews, it doesn't matter what website they are on; the person who answers them is the same. I'll remove the warning banner, because I have a feeling you, as an unregistered user, will not respond. LastJabberwocky (talk) 04:33, 19 April 2025 (UTC)