Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/MissingNo./archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Karanacs 17:18, 15 September 2009 [1].

MissingNo.

edit
Nominator(s): Kung Fu Man (talk) 02:37, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Toolbox

This article is a thorough, full and well rounded look at MissingNo., a controversial character in Pokémon Red and Blue used as an error handler that many people became quickly acquainted with, and one with a lasting impact. With the i's dotted, a thorough peer review, and an even more thorough copyedit, this should be a pleasure to read for you.Kung Fu Man (talk) 02:37, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support. While certain reviewers might take issue with the length, it passes all FA criteria and appears to fully cover the topic. I heavily copyedited the article prior to its nomination, but as far as I know, that does not void my support. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 03:47, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment the article is very short. Could you give details of MissingNo.'s abilities? Also, could you extend the background re: capturing, battling pokemon? If I hadn't had friends who played the games, I wouldn't understand the article without fishing through the bluelinks. -- EA Swyer Talk Contributions 14:23, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Going more in-depth than it is currently runs risk of violating WP:GAMEGUIDE, per previous editor's comments during the Peer Review and A-class assessment processes. As it stands all applicable information is already in the article despite its length.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 14:33, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:22, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's being cited solely for the Hall of Fame corruption information, however that info is actually repeated in another source in the article so replacing it to save hassle.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 03:15, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Images check out—article has one non-free image, but its use is justified. I'm not sure I'm satisfied, though, with the writing style or depth of coverage in the "Reaction and reception" section (particularly the second paragraph). First of all, the style is a bit clunky; I think it over-attributes the author (saying "the book talks about how," "the author believes", etc.) where it could be more active (for example, instead of saying "the book talks about how players compare notes...", the article could just describe players taking notes, and then have a footnote). This makes the prose feel a bit dry, IMO. Also, things are left unexplained or just glossed over. For example, "The author believed MissingNo.'s popularity to be an unusual case, with unique circumstances"—why does he think this, what does he think is unusual/unique, etc.? This is a very short article, and I think this section needs to be where the bulk of the content is (since the reaction to MissingNo. is what makes it notable), but right now it just doesn't feel complete to me. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 02:57, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "why does he think this, what does he think is unusual/unique, etc." I'm sorry but the author never actually explained that in the detail you seem to want. He gave three pages worth of discussion to how players reacted to the character and the study of such: the text is a straight up summary, so I don't see how it over-attributes said author. Adding more would require reading into his statements and walking into original research territory.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 03:06, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • For now, then, I will have to stay Neutral. This article is certainly a good article and also meets most of the FA criteria, but without more to offer I'm not sure it can be considered to be among Wikipedia's "very best work"—it does an excellent job creating a good article out of what little information is available, but unless more stuff becomes available this might just be too obscure a topic to write an FA about. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 16:20, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • No FA criterion states, "Articles that present a complete summary of a notable topic should be at least 30kb in size", or something like that. Wikipedia's "best work" is that which adheres to all FA criteria, not that which follows unwritten guidelines. If you have a problem with the length, when the subject clearly has enough coverage for a complete and notable summary, then I suggest that you make a push to update the FA criteria on related talk pages. As to the "over-attribution" of that author, I disagree. Ideally, Wikipedia articles should mention the writer in the prose every time they are used as a source. Not doing so necessitates synthesis and other forms of OR, such as "Several reviewers found fault with..." constructions. Properly, it should be "*source* said that several reviewers found fault with...", or simply the presentation of the reviews without a summary. Citing the former construction with those several reviews is synthesis, and therefore OR. Similarly, to state that author's comments without attribution is to give them "undue weight". How do we know that any of his statements are true? They could all be lies or fabrications. But that doesn't matter, because they are verifiable against reliable sources. So why confuse the reader by pretending that Wikipedia tells the truth, when all we're supposed to do is compile statements from reliable - not factual - sources? Better to attribute them and avoid the whole mess.
        • All of the above policy violations may be accepted practices at FAC (and believe me, they are; I've used them myself), but you can't openly suggest that it should be done this way without a backlash. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 20:29, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • I never said the article should be 30k or any other arbitrary length, that's something you completely made up; I said I don't think it gives enough information, and it leaves me with unanswered questions (if you want this put in terms of FA criteria, that's 1b). So stop putting words in my mouth. As for "over-attribution", you seem to be misinterpreting what I'm saying; I wasn't talking about citation issues, I was talking about writing style. Having "he says," "he believes", etc., on every single sentence is clunky (that's your criterion 1a, since you seem to be so hung up on wording things in terms of FA criteria and nothing else).
          • I looked carefully at the article and, if you haven't noticed, I didn't "oppose"; I'm not sure what I've done to warrant this snarky response from you. For Kung Fu Man's sake especially, I suggest you refrain from leaving any more snarky respones to comments people make here; the behavior of supporters often reflects on the FAC/RFA/AFD/whatever itself, and other people shouldn't have to pay for your silly remarks. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 23:12, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Outdent) Rjanag, I was not being snarky. If it came off that way, I apologize. I realize that you did not oppose, but I also know that opposition and support do not necessarily cause the FA director(s) to pass or fail an article. They judge consensus; when you leave a comment that questions the article's completeness—even if it's a neutral comment—they take note. These things are often what cause an article to fail, and so they must be attended to. As for your complaints about the article, you must present something "actionable", as they say. As in, it has to be something that can be fixed. If the article leaves you with questions, then what questions are they? Thus far, you have complained that the Reaction section is too brief. But if there is no other information to include, that isn't an actionable complaint. It also does not fall under 1b, as no "major facts or details" are neglected. What other major facts or details about MissingNo. exist? If you state these, or if you know of "relevant literature on the topic" not covered in the article, then complaints about completeness are justified. Your other complaint, regarding the attribution of the book source, was what I was arguing against; I was not talking about citations. Analyses should be attributed to their source in the prose—not just with a footnote. My previous comment digressed to explain that this is how policy would have it for all sourced material, despite its lack of enforcement at FAC. This does not fall under 1a, but rather 1d. An article that cites someone's analysis as fact is not neutral. "The book states that, in their attempts to canonize MissingNo. through fan art and fiction, Pokémon communities celebrated the game's imperfections and tried to imprint themselves on series' canon." - this becomes, "In their attempts to canonize MissingNo. through fan art and fiction, Pokémon communities celebrated the game's imperfections and tried to imprint themselves on series' canon." I can think of no way to reword this and keep the original meaning. The same goes for all the other prose-attributed statements. "MissingNo.'s popularity was an unusual case, with unique circumstances"? It just doesn't work. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 00:16, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have no further comment about the "1b" thing because I've already said my piece and don't want to hijack this FAC by going around in circles. As for the "1a" bit... if you think every sentence in an article should say "___ says" or "according to ___", that's all well and good, but you can spend weeks searching around and you will not find an FA, or any other article, that does that. Such a writing style would be impossible to sit down and read. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 00:37, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm changing to oppose because of the last sentence of the article, "The author believed MissingNo.'s popularity to be an unusual case, with unique circumstances.[9]" This sentence seems uninformative and a bit inane (just saying it's "unique" without saying why is bordering on peacock); if the author really didn't give any further information than that and we can't give any more clarification, I think the sentence is better off just being removed. If that sentence is removed I'll be back to neutral. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 00:19, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • copying Kung Fu Man's message from [2]—sorry, but I prefer to keep the discussion in one place:
        • But the exact line being paraphrase is:
        • "However, this is an unusal case and, for the most part, there is no equivalent attempt to ameliorate the situation through explanatory or compensatory textual production."
        • That sums up what the text is given without trying to embelish: he stated it as an unusal case and the circumstances were unique. I don't understand why you feel the need to come across as antagonistic over it, but no use of peacock words or other hubbub is being done here. Saying "remove something or I'll keep opposing" is a bit offkilter for a FAC of all things don't you think?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 00:29, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • My above message wasn't meant as a threat, which is how you seem to be interpreting it; it was the same as any substantive comments people make at FAC: "here is a problem with the article; I can't support an article that I think has a big problem; if you fix the problem, then it'll be better". You can choose to interpret my comments as "antagonistic" threats, but that's not my fault. As for the sentence itself: it's simply not informative. It's not your fault, it's the author's fault—although, for what it's worth, he seems to be saying a little more than your summary says (he's saying that what makes it "unique" is that no textual error message is given along with Missingno.).
          • Judging by this message you got from Jimmyblackwing, it seems that he and perhaps you think that there were "no actionable comments" in my message above. I don't know what you guys are missing; I specifically said that I think the article doesn't have enough information (1b) and has problems with writing style (1a). That's plenty constructive; you haven't taken any action on those comments in 5 days. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 00:36, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • I'm sorry that you felt ignored in any way, but I seriously felt the matter with your statements was done: I felt fine with how you felt, knew there was little I could do about it without feeling the article would be compromised and left it at neutral. In actuality what the text is referring to is the earlier bit of people attempting to rationalize MissingNo. amongst each other through text or other forms (that precedes that line if you notice from the page numbers in the references) and any other approach to the line would come across as wordy. He stated it was an unusual case, and that those circumstances were unique to it. If you can think of a better way to spell that out then we can come to an agreement, but I can't squeeze more content into the article where there is none to squeeze.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 00:48, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                • Like I said above, if there is "nothing more to squeeze" out of that sentence then it should be removed. If he said nothing more than that, it's simply not an informative or useless sentence, and Wikipedia doesn't need to parrot everything written by this guy. The fact of the matter is, as a reader, I got to that sentence and it didn't do anything for me; as an editor, I wanted to (and would have, if this weren't in the middle of a FAC) just taken it out, because in any context it's just bad writing. Regardless of content, I can't consider this "among Wikipedia's best work" if it ends on a silly sentence that sounds like it came out of a high school book report. Again, I'm not saying this is your fault—I'm simply saying that if there is no information in the source itself, it doesn't need to be repeated here. You are free to disagree and not remove the sentence, but I'm afraid my opposition will also have to stand, because (like I said above) I can't consider this some of Wikipedia's best work if it has that kind of fluff in it. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 00:52, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                    • Gah, so many walls of text. Compromise works nicely too no? "The author described these circumstances as unique to MissingNo., and called its popularity an unusual case." <- Is this better? It's rewritten to flow in mind with the previous statement and tie into them, thus better informing the reader while retaining the same information.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 00:57, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                      • Since this sentence is right after the bit about fans' attempts to "imprint themselves on the game's canon", so why not a rewording to "this treatment makes MissingNo. unique among video game glitches" or something like that? That's more expressive than the current wording—the key is being specific about what "circumstances" he sees as unique. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs
                        • But the text isn't saying "it's an unusual case amongst glitches", it's saying "it's an unusual case" as in "case to study". Going with the form you suggested isn't supported by the text, Rjanag. I'm going to go ahead with what I have: if you wish to continue to oppose from there there isn't anything I can do for the matter but feel your suggestions and policy don't agree on this matter.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 02:09, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • A bit on the short side, but I do think this fully covers a narrow topic. Stifle (talk) 09:14, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd personally rather see it merged into Pokémon Red and Blue, but if it has to stand as its own article, it should be comprehensive enough to be promoted. TTN (talk) 20:16, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - the article is as comprehensive as it can be, and the prose is very good. I did a small copyedit, but I still do have one concern. Throughout the article, Pokémon Red and Blue are always referred to as singular: (e.g. "the player uses a Pokémon with the Fly ability to reach the game's Cinnabar Island location") In the same vein as the Pokémon Red and Blue article, shouldn't it be plural (games')? Artichoker[talk] 22:43, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support-I performed a slight copyedit. Most of the changes are trivial in nature, but I did take a stab at rewording the description of how the event is triggered—it was confusing before and hopefully it's clearer now, but you should check and make sure it's still correct and I haven't mishandled the source. As comprehensive as it's going to get, image is well justified, sources check out and I think the prose reaches the necessary quality. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 02:27, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reluctant support. I almost think the fact that this article meets the FA criteria is a sign they need to be improved somehow. I'm not talking about length or importance, but... quality of external coverage? This article just feels weak. But it does meet the FA criteria. Noisalt (talk) 02:42, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/MissingNo./archive1&oldid=1074635450"