Wikipedia:Peer review/MissingNo./archive1

MissingNo.

This peer review discussion has been closed.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I wish to bring it to FA, and need someone with a thorough eye to help find and isolate any errors the article may have and make it the best I can. I realize it's a very small article, but at the same time this is the extent of the information available on MissingNo.

Thank you for your time and patience, Kung Fu Man (talk) 02:34, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

• "the player would have to see the Old Man's demonstration" – I'm not so sure this makes sense to someone not familiar with the games. "the player would have to see the Old Man's demonstration of how to catch Pokémon" (or something like that) would make more sense. Theleftorium 13:51, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

• Fixed it with what you suggested, hopefully should be clearer for readers as a result now.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 01:25, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: I do not play Pokemon or this video game and I was able to follow this for the most part. I think it needs some work before FAC though, so here are some suggestions for improvement.

• The images have some issues - the source for File:Missingno.gif can't just be "Taken from an emulator" - I think it has to say that it is from Nintendo (although this is noted elsewhere)
• More importantly an image is repeated twice in the article, which is against WP:NFCC - a portion of the infobox image is repeated as the first of the four images in File:Missingno-ny.png, so at most that should show only the three other possible forms. If the other images are kept, then I think there needs to be more on them in the article than just though certain encounter values will result in a MissingNo. with the appearance of one of three 64×64 pixel sprites used elsewhere in the game.[8] There might be some at FAC who argue that the other forms are not needed at all (I am not an image expert).

That was done to make it easier for the image to be used in other article if need be and remain comprehensive.

OK, but I doubt it will make it through FAC with two images of the d-shaped static thingy. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 13:07, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

• The refs seem to be OK, but I would check if the sources used reliable (how about destructoid.com for example?)

This came up in the GAN actually. Destructoid's been regarded as fine to use as long as it's established that it's staff-backed and not a random blogger.

OK, thanks Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 13:07, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

• I would also make sure that the refs are formatted consistently - for example "Pokemon Red and Blue" is italicized in some refs, but not in others.

Not sure where to be honest...all the refs with Pokemon Red and Blue I see have them italicized just fine...

In current ref 11 it is not italicized - Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 13:07, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

• Since these seem to be only for the Game Boy, could a free photo of that be used - for example File:Gameboy.jpg?

No. An issue came up before with a Simpson's arcade cabinet awhile back on Wikipedia where the cabinet was deemed free, but the on-screen display caught in the photo was not :\

OK, but the image I suggested does not show any on-screen display (just a blank screen). Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 13:07, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

• One of the biggest problems I see with the article is a need to provide context for the reader - for example in the lead Game Freak should be identified as the developer.

Fixing...are there any others?

• I also note that criterion 1 of WP:WIAFA is the most difficult one for the majority of articles to meet. The same sentence in the lead referred to above Standing for "Missing Number" and described as a "programming quirk", MissingNo. is used as an error handler by Game Freak to appear in the event of the game attempting to access data for a Pokémon species that does not exist. is one example of language that needs to be cleaned up / polished.
• For context in the History section I would add a sentence or two on the development of the game(s) and about the fact that these are only for the Game Boy.

Seems unnecessary considering the glitch isn't tied absolutely to the background behind the games nor the Game Boy's hardware itself, no? (A MissingNo. for example is encounterable on Super Game Boy, Game Boy Color and GBA just fine in these carts).

• A model article is useful for ideas and examples to follow - Wikipedia:Featured_articles#Video_gaming has many FAs on games, some of which may be useful models.

That's what I tried to do actually.

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch poeer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 04:08, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Responded to the points above.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 06:21, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I think that the context points are to make clearer this is only for GameBoy, and to make it clearer why people tried to do this (seems to be partly for the challenge, but mostly to duplicate item 6 - the collection of items needs to be clarified / explained better too. More to come on awkward language. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 13:07, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Awkward language and context needed examples (try to be more thorough, still would be a good idea to get a copy edit or at least print this out and read it out loud slowly):

• perhaps split into two sentences: First documented by Nintendo in the May 1999 issue of Nintendo Power, encountering MissingNo. results in mostly temporary graphical errors and the mass duplication of the player's sixth item in their item menu, the latter effect resulting in player's guides and gaming magazines covering the glitch.
• Explain what the Hall of fame gallery is - is this high scores? Or is it some sort of Pokemon zoo (best ones I fought or captured?)
• missing word Other graphical glitches may also occur,[9] though [these?] are temporary and will be removed by viewing another Pokémon’s statistic screen or resetting the Game Boy.
• Rewrite perhaps as something like Nintendo has described MissingNo. as a "programming quirk" and has warned against encountering it;[1][5] the company removed the glitch in the game's follow up title, Pokémon Yellow.[7]
• Also needs a rewrite, perhaps as something like In a related article, they stated MissingNo. "...really says something about Pokemon fans that they took what is a potentially game ruining glitch and used it as a shortcut to level up their Pokemon."[6]
• Only one study is cited in the article, so should this be singular (a sociological study)? Reactions by players to MissingNo. has been the subject of sociological studies regarding individuals and video games. Or is the book Playing with Videogames also a soc. study? If so, say so (Another sociological examination, the book Playing with Videogames...)
• Awkward, especially the room to reproduce part It also states that in this process the individuals were celebrating and publicizing imperfections in the game while attempting to imprint themselves on the canon, and adds that the circumstances surrounding MissingNo.'s popularity is a unique case with little room to reproduce.[17]

OK, I do not do copy edits, but tried to point out the most obvious places - there are still several other places that could benefit from a copyedit - see the copyeditor volunteers at the bottom of WP:PR/V. Hope this helps, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 13:25, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

• Very interesting article. A few issues need to be addressed before FAC, however. Firstly, the images: the rationale for the header image is weak, and the second image seems pointless. Second, a copyedit will be required. I noticed, for example, awkward wording and many of those infamous "noun +ing"s. I might be able to work on it in the next few days. Finally, it wouldn't hurt to clarify the prose for the average reader, like the first paragraphs of History and Characteristics. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 04:48, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Began copyedit; will continue in the coming days. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 10:34, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
    • Another comment: I noted that you did not update the lead image's rationale. If this is because you do not have time, I understand. However, if you leave it in its current state, it will come up during FAC. I recommend that you take care of it now. See this if you need an example rationale—it was helpfully written for me during my last FAC. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 10:43, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
      • Thanks, that did help immensely, those things have always been a pain in the butt for me. I've been busy over the past few days and really only able to knock out a few things on my todo list as of late.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 14:10, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
• I've gone through the whole article. I plan on editing it more, as it still has issues; the final paragraph, for example, needs a few more rewrites. My elimination of redundant words has unfortunately caused the article to become ridiculously short; this will probably lead to a pain of a FAC. Notify me when you put it up and I'll give it my support, as despite its length, I believe it's FA quality. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 23:06, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Actually, strike that last part. The article in its current state fails 1c. As in, the prose is not actually covered by the references. For example, the first paragraph of Characteristics. I was just checking out the IGN link, and noticed that the text it's attributed to is not really what it says. Basically, "This causes the hexadecimal values assigned to each letter of the player's name to be referenced for the wild Pokémon on the coasts of Cinnabar and Seafoam island" and "if the value selected from the data buffer is not an existing Pokémon, a subroutine is triggered that causes the appearance of a Pokémon named MissingNo" are guesses based on IGN's comment, "Blah blah blah, number values, blah blah blah". This will be discovered at FAC, due to the recent push by certain editors to check for the proper attribution of refs. The recent FireRed and LeafGreen nomination had a lot of trouble with this, as you probably know. If you want any chance of passing FAC, you're going to need to take care of this. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 03:45, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
    • I put the player's guide ref beside it, since it fills in the missing gaps. It should suffice (found a gameshark booklet that showed non-existent values creating MissingNo. I was going to use as a supplementary ref just in case, but it doesn't seem to have any information to cite for it, it was bundled with an old issue of EGM and I've since lost that).--Kung Fu Man (talk) 04:11, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
    • I will say I do appreciate the copyedit and the work you've done. The length of the article though troubles the hell out of me now for FAC, and it already was before it was shortened. >_<--Kung Fu Man (talk) 04:24, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
      • No problem. If the player's guide has that info in it, I guess it's taken care of. You might want to double check all the refs before FAC, to make sure there aren't any more mistakes. Besides that, I don't think they have a case against you at FAC. As far as I know, you cannot question an article's notability at FAC; they would need to attack it from the "it isn't researched" angle, which doesn't apply unless they can turn up missing info. Even if they do question whether it's notable, I think the coverage you've turned up proves that it is. It may be the shortest FAC ever, but as long as it meets the criteria, they can't reasonably oppose it. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 06:39, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
• I've finished copyediting the article. It's now short enough to guarantee annoying comments at FAC. It'll be rough, but as I said before, they don't really have anything to use against you. They can whine, but they cannot make a real opposition based on Wikipedia guidelines. I recommend that you make sure that this is the case with every aspect of the article, from MOS-adherence to reference attribution. Otherwise, be prepared for "The citations are inappropriate, not to mention the length"-style comments. Even if the length criticism is not actionable, its appearance alongside another complaint will give it weight. Expect a snowball effect as reviewers' perception of the article deteriorates with each new comment. If it is tight in all areas, however, the whiners will be exposed as such and you will get comments like "It's a nice article. The length really isn't a problem, since it covers everything there is to say". This is just something I've picked up from a few years watching FACs. There will be a snowball effect, due to peer pressure. Make sure it's a positive snowball. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 21:53, 29 August 2009 (UTC)