You may value one person's input and talent more than the other, but to think one person or the other has some overwhelming majority of the credit on their collaborative efforts beyond a 60/40 split might be pushing it.

Together these guys made great characters and stories. So great in fact that the product raised their creators to the height of fandom. I think Jesus is on the money when he points out Stan was the most accessible and easily hoisted by media, fandom and the ignorant.

Ultimately, credit where credit is due so I consider them equally when dolling out the contributing credit and try not to raise either member of the team higher than the other.

Still the issue of assigning due credit in the Lee, Kirby, & Ditko collaboration is more complex than in the case of the Beatles since it is not just historal footnotes as to who created what which is often being raised: there is also the issue of financial compensation. Steve and Jack got pay-for-hire but created as though they were partners.

I wouldn't want to take any credit from Stan, but it would be nice if it was ackowledged that Steve and Jack (expecially Jack) were golden gooses which they were. Kirby's imagination was not fueled through his collaboration with Stan. Kirby's work on Green Arrow and Challengers of the Unknown produced just before landing at Marvel are evidence of the cosmos that was trying to break through editorial interference.

In the end, perhaps Stan's greatest feat asemployee at Marvel was NOT interfering with the creative process and for channeling his Kirby and Ditko powerhouses. Allowing Ditko to work on his own, on a succesful strip like Spider-Man, while sales were good speaks volumes about Stan's judgement as editor.

And, to Stan's credit, I have never read that he showed anything but admiration (and even affection) for Jack and Steve's work. 

I think that history has proven that the vastness of the greatness achieved by Ditko, Kirby and Stan Lee are when they worked together. 

Stan Lee's work with John Romita IMO was better  than anything he did with Ditko on Spider-Man. But that's just my opinion. 

There will never be a question about Jack Kirby's art. But the writing is something else. 

Stan Lee never created anything greater later on in his career as during that period in the 60's.  Neither did Kirby or Ditko either. 

But if you think about it that shouldn't be a slight against any of them. How many people in their entire comic career created even one great creation?

Stan Lee , Jack Kirby and Steve Ditko where in the right place at the right time. 

It's my opinion that the seeds of those great creations initially began in Stan Lee's head. But it was Kirby and Ditko who took those seeds and created something from them. Stan than took them and presented them in a manner that made people what more. In the process of presenting the product he also presented the people who made them.

The quote you put up I believe stresses my point about the article and what the writer is saying. There is, in my opinion, a difference between the work and the medium. The writer minimizes Stan's contributions to the stories and stresses his effectiveness as a marketer. 

In the creation and success of these early Marvel characters and stories there seems to be one constant. There is a group of individuals that feels knocking down Stan Lee is the best way to elevate Jack Kirby and Steve Ditko. 

Could Marvel have had success minus Kirby on the work of Lee/Ditko. Could it have been successful without Ditko on the work of Lee/Kirby. It is doubtful but possible. Without Stan Lee I think it is even less likely. The way I see it Stan was the pitch man, Kirby and Ditko fleshed it out, then Lee wrote the copy.

For me it is less Lennon/McCartney and more Elton John/Bernie Taupin. One produces words the other feeling, strong individually unstoppable when put together.