This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

20th Century Studios Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject 20th Century Studios, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of 20th Century Studios and its affiliated companies on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.20th Century StudiosWikipedia:WikiProject 20th Century StudiosTemplate:WikiProject 20th Century Studios20th Century Studios Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Comics: Marvel / Films Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Comics, a collaborative effort to build an encyclopedic guide to comics on Wikipedia. Get involved! If you would like to participate, you can help with the current tasks, visit the notice board, edit the attached article or discuss it at the project's talk page.ComicsWikipedia:WikiProject ComicsTemplate:WikiProject ComicsComics Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Related work groups: /  This article is supported by Marvel Comics work group. This article is supported by Comic book films work group. Disney Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Disney, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of The Walt Disney Company and its affiliated companies on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DisneyWikipedia:WikiProject DisneyTemplate:WikiProject DisneyDisney Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Film: Comic book / Marvel Cinematic Universe / American This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm This article is supported by the Comic book films task force. This article is supported by the Marvel Cinematic Universe task force. This article is supported by the American cinema task force. LGBTQ+ studies This article is of interest to WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBTQ-related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.LGBTQ+ studiesWikipedia:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesTemplate:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesLGBTQ+ studies United States: Cinema Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Film - American cinema task force (assessed as Low-importance).

Last week Justin Baldoni's lawyer alleged that "Nicepool" is based on / mocking Baldoni, and a user added this claim to the article here. For anyone unaware, this is coming amidst a growing legal battle between Baldoni and Reynolds's wife Blake Lively over their film It Ends with Us. I removed the claim as it sounded like a weak accusation to me, but this article breaks down how there may be some merit to it. What do others think about a mention of this in the article? And if we do include it, is the Cast section the right place or should this go in Reception? - adamstom97 (talk) 10:19, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Could it not just be a note, that itself links to the wider controversy? It feels very tangential to have in this topic's article body. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 15:33, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I hadn't thought of that, but a note or maybe a See Also link could be a good approach while this is just tangentially related. - adamstom97 (talk) 16:39, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have been closely watching and reading into this whole controversy, though with how preliminary these claims are, I'm not sure if it ought to be included in this article or if that would be giving it WP:UNDUEWEIGHT. I like the idea of linking to the wider controversy in See also. I don't think this has gotten to a point where we know if it would directly have an effect on this film, unlike similar situations (ala Aquaman and the Lost Kingdom with the Depp-Heard situation). The whole Nicepool of it all could potentially be mentioned in either the Pre-production / Filming or Post-prod sections, based on how THR and Variety link it within the context of the production, if we wanted to keep track of the claims directly related to this film here. Trailblazer101 (talk) 16:45, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have added a note on Baldoni's allegations per the GA nomination discussion. - adamstom97 (talk) 10:38, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

should the mention of Logan's history being what made him a hero now be explained as an "absolute point"? That's how it was with Strange Supreme, right? Visokor (talk) 11:58, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that is necessarily the same thing, and that term isn't used in this film. - adamstom97 (talk) 12:07, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Following the recent work to tidy up the article, I think it is in a good place to nominate for GA. I know there has been some recent vandalism issues but the page has now been protected so I don't think those should be an issue. Does anyone have any concerns about me nominating the article? Anything I've missed that needs to be addressed first? - adamstom97 (talk) 11:48, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I concur that this article really seems ready for a GA nomination. I grew tired of the vandalism so I'm glad the protection went through for a whole year, I figured that would make things easier on us. I honestly don't know of what else could be added to the article off the top of my head. There were only some minor general adjustments I noticed. I just want to commend you for all of the dedicated work you have put into this article lately. I'm happy to assist with a GA nom should others agree with one, though I do plan on submitting some other superhero film articles for GA soon, so I may commit more to those. Trailblazer101 (talk) 16:32, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose the final things we may wish to consider weighing on including is the Baldoni "Nicepool" allegations, which had its lawsuit recently amended and if we want to link it to the It Ends with Us controversy article so it does not distract too much from this scope. Other than that, I did find some sources stating some filming did occur in Vancouver in the #UNDUE focus on background and uncredited actors section, if we think they adequately verify that or not. Trailblazer101 (talk) 16:41, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if I'll get to this, but one thought I had when the info about the legacy characters came out, a lot of them mentioned about when Reynolds reached out to them ahead of filming to join, and it felt to me that it may make the article flow better if those points were moved up to the Pre production section than the post. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:06, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think we could make it work either way. Technically we could move most of the actor details from Filming and Post-production into the Pre-production section, but we do generally like to note things where they were revealed in the production history. I think the flow works fine with the first reveals in the Filming section and the confirmation in Post-production. - adamstom97 (talk) 17:27, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I like Erik's suggestion above about including the Nicepool allegations in a note with a link to the controversy's article. As for the Vancouver stuff, I think we would only be guessing what was done with those sources. It seems possible that some plates were shot for the skyline / background extensions, but I don't think we can specify that yet. - adamstom97 (talk) 17:33, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I too like the note idea. I think the most-recent Variety article I linked ought to suffice for citing the details. I think it could read something along the lines of "Justin Baldoni, the director and co-star of the film It Ends with Us (2024), alleged in a lawsuit that Ryan Reynolds based the character Nicepool off of him during a dispute over that film's production with Baldoni's co-star and Reynolds's wife, Blake Lively."^[1] That also makes sense on the Vancouver stuff. Trailblazer101 (talk) 05:35, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've added the note on Baldoni. - adamstom97 (talk) 10:37, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I tried editing a link to a source reporting about the shot of Vancouver in the trailer. Can someone please explain why linking to an article pointing this out is not considered worthy of inclusion as it provides context. It should be uncontroversial and acceptable that this shot does in fact appear near the end of the finished movie. Count3D (talk) 05:34, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think we know definitively whether that was just some old footage they had available or if that was actually a new second unit scene shot for this film. I think we would need a source concretely affirming it was second unit for this, but the current ones (which I linked to above) only speculative on it. Besides, simply noting a location is seen in a very brief scene in the film and a trailer is not noteworthy and constitutes a trivial mention. Trailblazer101 (talk) 06:04, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. Since I saw the various mentions of Vancouver already existing on the page, and given Reynolds well-documented professional history supporting his hometown, it didn't make sense to me why further sources should be excluded, but if the assumption is that it's trivial, and that's consensus, that's fine. Count3D (talk) 02:46, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Deadpool co-creator Rob Liefeld has recently announced he has severed ties with Marvel, alleging he was mistreated at this film's NY premiere, not being invited to its after party, having Disney press photos deleted, his request for a special credit, and on Feige and co.'s handling of comic creators, and also cites the change in the Wolverine creator credits. Some of this may be worth including in this article since there has been some elaboration on this. Trailblazer101 (talk) 20:03, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My initial feeling is some of this can go on Liefeld's page but I don't see much that is relevant to the film. He asked for a different credit than what is usually given and it seems like that wasn't entertained, and the other issues he lists sound pretty subjective. "Deadpool creator Rob Liefeld doesn't like Kevin Feige and is mad that he wasn't invited to a party", basically. - adamstom97 (talk) 20:13, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

yeah. I don't see a reason for inclusion since the film itself didn't cause this subjective and "supposed" studio "drama". Liefeld being miffed because he didn't sip champagne with Bob Iger and shake hands with Feige is his own business, and seems WP:UNDUE anywhere other than the subject describing his exit. BarntToust 21:14, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Deadpool & Wolverine/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Adamstom.97 (talk · contribs) 21:13, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Vestrian24Bio (talk · contribs) 11:41, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I will be reviewing this article, expect the initial remarks soon! Vestrian24Bio 11:41, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Adamstom.97:

• EARWIG shows 99.1% - suspected violation.
  • Looks like something went wrong with that search and it picked up Deadpool instead, which has apparently been turned into some kind of NFT. I did a new EARWIG search on this page and got "Violation unlikely". - adamstom97 (talk) 17:06, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Now it shows 23.7%, good. Vestrian24Bio 13:18, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • I know this is beyond the scope of this GA review, but I have added that site to the bot exclusions list and registered it as a fork site here. Trailblazer101 (talk) 17:28, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

      @Trailblazer101: thanks. Vestrian24Bio 13:18, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• According to Link-dispenser,
  • Only 1 ref need an archive link.
    •  Done - adamstom97 (talk) 17:06, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Refs 53 & 229 are the same.
  •  Done - adamstom97 (talk) 17:06, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Isn't there any sort of news coverage or something for the tweets.

Vestrian24Bio 16:34, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• • Some sources picked up on the initial tweet, but I haven't seen any that noticed the follow-up tweet where he confirmed Scobell's role in the deleted scene. - adamstom97 (talk) 17:06, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Will continue, Vestrian24Bio 13:18, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Good Article review progress box Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV () 3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant () Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed