Talk:MissingNo./GA1

GA Review

Extended content

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch This is my review of MissingNo. I have not carried out any edits on the article at all. Infobox: Should contain type (Normal/Bird) and Pokedex number (which is 000). These added out of the blue may confuse readers, and current Pokemon articles do not list type (see Jigglypuff, Mewtwo, etc). The number is left out because there's debate on the Pokemon project's talk page whether Nintendo is stating MissingNo. is officially regarded as #000 or just stating it to be safe. It's discussed in the article body to better effect. Picture- consider adding this: File:Missingno.png to the article. See talk page, it was brought up but the qualm was the number of Fair-use rationales needed and the addition of the Pokemon Yellow version of the image, which isn't discussed due to no reliable sources. Yes, I read the discussion on the talk page. The decision was to err on the side of caution. "It is believed that the use of a limited number of web-resolution screenshots * for identification and critical commentary on o the computer or video game in question or o the copyrighted character(s) or item(s) depicted on the screenshot in question * on the English-language Wikipedia, hosted on servers in the United States by the non-profit Wikimedia Foundation, qualifies as fair use under United States copyright law, as such display does not significantly impede the right of the copyright holder to sell the copyrighted material, is not being used to generate profit in this context, and presents ideas that cannot be exhibited otherwise. " I believe the image falls under the above criterion. Lead: The first line should establish notability, so it should mention that MissingNo. is a glitch. The article isn't written from the perspective that MissingNo. is a glitch, because it in itself isn't stated as such by Nintendo. All quotes must be sourced, even if they're in the lead. So the citation: "programming quirk" must be sourced. Generally citations in the lead are recommended to be avoided (that and it's cited already down towards the end of the article) I was unsure about this too, but after a long discussion on IRC, I found out that quotes, statistics, and contentious statements have to be sourced, even if they're in the lead. The following line: However, due to the manner by which two in-game events were programmed, players could encounter the MissingNo. Pokémon in two areas via a glitch by triggering the events one after the other. is not clear, the "however" is out of place, the line is overly detailed, it should be removed. Tweaked the line. The line First documented by Nintendo in the May 1999 issue of Nintendo Power, is redundant as the same line is mentioned in the History section. Start the second paragraph with Encountering MissingNo. Redundancy shouldn't be a problem for the lead, it's a summary of the article per WP:LEAD after all. Not uncommon to have lines repeated from the subject's body. Generally lines like: one of the most famous glitches in video gaming by sources such as IGN must be sourced, but since it's explained later on in the article, it's probably safe to leave it unsourced in the lead. I won't insist on this. The reason I was against it is because the proximity of the same phrase disturbs the flow of the article. But never mind. The following line is not sourced in the article, however. You'll have to source it in the lead: fans of the game series have attempted to rationalize MissingNo. as a full Pokémon within the game's world It's sourced by ref #15 in Reaction and reception. As for this sentence: an aspect of interest to sociologists discussing the impact of games upon society do you have sources indicating more than 1 sociologist has discussed this topic? If not, you can't use sociologists. Try using sociology instead. Fixed. History: The line These abilities allow players to interact differently within the game's world as well, such as using "Fly" to travel instantly between two areas. is redundant and should be removed. How is it redundant? It explains to readers unfamiliar with the subject of Pokemon what the abilities Surf and Fly are exactly since they're tossed around in the next section. Define "Surf" in that paragraph then too. It looks like you've randomly chosen Fly as an example. (Clarification- I rechecked, and I still don't think the definition of Fly is necessary. It's self-explanatory in the paragraph after that.) The line ... events necessary to cause the glitch to appear ... is incorrect. The lead says MissingNo. is a Pokemon. While it may be both, you cannot use the terms interchangeably. Changed to "glitch to occur" since it's referencing the glitch that causes MissingNo. to appear (and to avoid redundancy with the start of the sentence). In the line ...travel up and down it would eventually... the "it" is redundant and should be removed. Fixed. Characteristics: In the sentence: Between each area, the game... specify what you mean by "each area". Tweaked a little, should be clear beyond that though it's referring to in-game areas. The first paragraph needs more clarity. Event is not a correct term for two processes that must take place. And, as such, the line The second event is caused by the Old Man's demonstration is incorrect, as the second event IS the Old Man's demonstration. Fixed, wikilinked earlier in the article to Event (computing). Please clarify the second sentence. Between each area, the game assigns values for Pokémon that the player encounters to a data buffer, read by the game when they encounter a wild Pokémon. Is the value assigned after encountering the Pokemon? Tweaked to be clearer. In the sentence: ... the hexadecial values assigned ..., hexadecial should be replaced by hexadecimal. Apparently fixed? Source: Once encountered, players can fight, flee, or capture MissingNo. like any other wild Pokémon in the game. Fixed In this line: Regardless of the outcome, after encountering the Pokémon, the sixth item in the player's item menu will be increased from its current value to 128 source 6 says 128 copies are made, source 12 says infinite copies are made. Which one is true? 6. 12 is true as well, in the sense that it can be done repeatedly and endlessly. As for this line: and the game's "Hall of Fame" gallery will become permanently glitched. Other graphical glitches may also occur, though are temporary and will be removed by viewing another Pokémon’s statistic screen or resetting the Game Boy. Source 1 confirms several of the facts, however source 8 does not adequately source the facts mentioned. Fixed, moved the ref up the sentence, so the Pokemon Future ref could cover the rest. "Numberical" should be "numerical". Fixed "Able to be used" should be shortened to "usable". Pokemon Trainers should be Pokemon trainers, I think (though I might be wrong here). Fixed. Source these sentences: If captured, MissingNo. will be treated as a fully functional Pokémon for the player to use, appearing in the game's numerical index listing as number "000" and able to be used against wild Pokémon or other Pokémon Trainers. Each MissingNo. have consistent abilities, type (listed as "Normal/Bird"), statistics, and sounds. They shouldn't be original research. All are covered by (currently) ref 8 (what was ref 9 during your review). "...will be increased from its current value" not it's. Fixed? Each MissingNo. has consistent abilities, not have. Fixed Expand the line "Used in certain in-game areas and events". I can't go into more detail than that without having to explain too much more, which might confuse readers (how would they know that the Pokemon Tower is or the significance of its ghost for example?) How about: "used elsewhere in the game." or something to that effect? In its current state it seems as if you're teasing the reader. Reaction and reception: "The glitch has had significant impact" should be sourced, else it's OR. It's backed up by the subsequent statements. That's generally considered suitable to start paragraphs (like saying "The game received mixed reception" then discussing how). "Despite Nintendo's warnings, due to MissingNo.'s positive effect" might not be correct, as MissingNo. has negative effects too. You might want to write: "perceived positive effect". Fixed. "gaming communities revolving around Pokémon have attempted" Why is Pokemon italicized? Referring to the Pokemon franchise in this case, not the individual pokemon themselves. "More deeply" is incorrect English. Try using the phrase "in depth" instead. Fixed. "Noting players tendency to ... assessing and critiquing" is incorrect tense. Should be "assess and critique". Fixed "extent by which" should be "extent to which". Fixed "popularity is a unique" should be "an unique". Fixed I was wrong about this. It's a unique. It's been changed by another editor. See also: What is the relevance of Gameplay of Pokemon to the article? Hm, not really needed anymore. Removed. References: Source 8 might not constitute a reliable source according to WP:RS, as it's a blog. You may want to remove sentences from source 8, and replace it with source 1. Destructoid's considered valid by the video game project for a source as long as it's a post by the staff. Also source 1 doesn't discuss the corruption that happens to the Hall of Fame gallery. Pending improvements to the article, I'm placing this On Hold. Addressed each issue.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 14:58, 15 June 2009 (UTC) Minor comment The sentence MissingNo.'s appearance in Pokémon Red and Blue has been noted as one of the most famous glitches in video gaming by sources such as IGN, and fans of the game series have attempted to rationalize MissingNo. as a full Pokémon within the game's world, an aspect of interest to sociology discussing the impact of games upon society. is long and awkward and needs to be revised. Artichoker[talk] 16:23, 15 June 2009 (UTC) Agreed. Perhaps breaking it up would improve clarity. Aditya α ß 16:52, 15 June 2009 (UTC) All done. The image is in, but I still think after butting my head up against User:David Fuchs enough time at FACs it'd be argued to be removed if FA is pursued for the article. :\--Kung Fu Man (talk) 20:55, 15 June 2009 (UTC) After thinking it through for a moment, I have to ask. Is there some sort of reliable source that can be used to make a special note about MissingNo. being a "Bird" type Pokemon? If types are used to define and categorize Pokemon, then MissingNo. is, to date, the only Pokemon to have "Bird" as a given type, as this is not a proper Pokemon type (all official Pokemon, excluding MissingNo., list the type as "Flying"). Hurricane Angel Saki (talk) 06:42, 16 June 2009 (UTC) Bulbapedia's actually the only one to really give any analysis of "Bird" type, and all it noted was it reappeared in G/S/C and had no strengths/weakness set up. Explaining that in the article would probably end up as OR, and probably better explained on at "Pokémon type"--Kung Fu Man (talk) 06:50, 16 June 2009 (UTC) OK, that works well. Never mind my note then. Hurricane Angel Saki (talk) 07:36, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Now that I'm satisfied that MissingNo. satisfies the Good Article criteria, I'm promoting it to a GA. Congratulations! And if you wish to review one yourself, GAN is that way. Aditya ^α _ß 08:00, 16 June 2009 (UTC)