Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Zork/archive1

Zork

 * Nominator(s):  Pres N  13:35, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

Earlier this year, I brought Colossal Cave Adventure through FAC, as the ur-example and namesake of an adventure game. But despite it being first, the "father of the genre" isn't Adventure—it's Zork, the oddly named game first released in 1977 that truly launched the interactive fiction/text adventure genre in the early 80s and showed the exploding computer game community that video games contain a complex world and not just action. Zork got lucky with its timing, as not every game sells 100 times as much in its 3rd year than its first due to market expansion, but from the imaginations of four guys at MIT you can draw a straight line through to any modern game that features exploration and puzzle solving.

I've been working on early video games for a while, and picked up Zork this summer as a project and rewrote the whole thing, merging in its three subarticles in the process. It just passed GA with a very thorough copyedit/critique by (who, like everyone else, dislikes what I do with semicolons). I think it's a very interesting article—I walked into the project just knowing it was "that game with the grues", but it ended up being a fun story about creating a passion project game and then a successful commercial video game venture in an era where there were no guidelines or examples of how to do that. I hope you find it interesting too! -- Pres N  13:35, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

Support from Czar
Hi! Your intro was a good pitch to read this. :)
 * "Several puzzles have more than one solution." This would benefit from an example, which would double as giving an example of how the game's puzzles work in general. czar  17:16, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
 * The trick is finding an RS that goes into enough detail... I'll look for one.
 * Infocom's invisiclues would probably be a reliable source for anything about solutions. InvisiClues should probably also be mentioned by name in the body of the article. DefThree (talk) 23:33, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Added one, thanks; I think it's a good one because not only is one of the solutions kind of... weird (a definite running theme throughout the game), but it was actually the first solution of the two that they made. -- Pres N  01:52, 10 November 2022 (UTC)


 * "grue" is jargon—needs some context for the reader to know what it is czar  17:16, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Done


 * Source formatting consistency – Some periodicals have publishers listed, others don't (PC World, NY Times). Some have identifiers like ISSN or ISBN, and others don't. The only FAC rule is that it be consistent, but my strong recommendation would be to drop the publisher field on non-books (like websites and periodicals), as it doesn't add anything for the reader beyond what a link to the periodical's WP article would provide. czar  17:16, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
 * The consistent rule I was following was "don't include the publisher if it's the same name as the periodical" and "all magazines get ISSNs" - the New York Times (and The New Zork Times, for that matter) aren't magazines and don't get ISSNs. I've gone ahead and removed the publisher from websites and periodicals, however- it's not worth arguing about, though I'll note that reviewers in years past had just as strong recommendations to add them. -- Pres N  02:10, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Looks good! czar  03:42, 14 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Made some copy edits directly
 * Thanks


 * "Crowther and Woods" are invoked before they're introduced (I've removed their names)
 * Thanks


 * The addition of grues seems out of context for Development—can it just say that grues were meant to replace other forms of death, if that's how it's meant?
 * Done


 * loses me. So for each microcomputer, they wrote an interpreter for "Z-machine" software to read their new ZIL? If so, could be said like that.
 * Done


 * Why? This paragraph is a bit proseline. It would be better to explain why sales increased or just explain that it remained a best-seller for X years.
 * It is a bit, yeah; condensed


 * The Plot opens by saying it's minor within the story, but then proceeds to go into length that rivals the entire Gameplay section. Couldn't it be half its length—or a single paragraph in Gameplay—if it isn't cited as important in sources?
 * Yeah, unfortunately some of the reviewers doing copyedits are actually changing the meaning of sentences/paragraphs without adjusting citations, which is driving me up a wall. Reverting to my preferred (original!) version, which didn't say it was limited/non-essential, but just said it was not a linear story.
 * Ah, okay. My understanding from what I've read in the sourcing (and its lack of mention in the Reception) is that the plot is a minor aspect, no? Right now it has undue weight if it's just as long as the entire gameplay (i.e., the aspects for which it's known), and we know what bloat is going to happen to befall this section over time. Why not condense the important plot details into a single paragraph and merge it into Gameplay, per WP:VG/PLOT? czar
 * Okay, I've condensed some of the details of plot, and moved others into gameplay; I'd like to keep it as a distinct section, however- it may be less important, but it does exist in the sense that this is not a truly plotless game like Pacman- you move through a world/setting to solve the puzzles, which has two distinct characters, and that setting/characters should be described.
 * Where do I place my bet on how long it'll take for IP editors to double the Plot section's length? :) czar
 * Not taking that bet :(


 * Reception has a fair amount of "X said Y" WP:CRS · One FA-quality way to handle this would be something like, "Among 1981 reviews, X, Y, and Z praised the game overall, saying A, B, and C, respectively." And then going into any nitpicks about lack of graphics or documentation. Or go into depth on reviewer opinions on its puzzles/gameplay. For what it's worth, I don't think the reviewers need to be introduced by name if it makes it more confusing for the reader.
 * Let me think about this... part of the problem is that in 1981, video game reviewing was all over the place- a lot of these "reviews" are just rambles talking about that they liked it, so its hard to collate them like you would in a modern game's article.
 * Okay, reworked the reception section to try to do this (and removed the names and most of the dates); it's a little difficult as stated, since most of the reviews spend most of their time talking about the process of physically playing the game, but hopefully it's alright.
 * Much improved—I think it has much better flow for a general reader. Nice work! The second paragraph is still repetitive: "if you liked Adventure ... you'll love Zork", "worth the money ... for anyone ... interested in adventure games", "must-have" for those interested in adventure games. Wouldn't it suffice to just say X, Y, Z recommended it for those interested in adventure games? I don't think those quotes are adding much additional sentiment. czar
 * Done.


 * => "Reviews in Softalk and Creative Computing named Zork III as the best in the trilogy."
 * Done


 * Do we need the precise placements on all of these top games of all time lists? Can't we just say it was included on XYZ lists?
 * Condensed


 * How did Infocom's two Activision-era Zork games sell? I'd assume it's relevant if it led to their closure in 1989.
 * No sources about them specifically, though probably alright; I don't want to get too detailed, as this article is about Zork, not Infocom, but added a sentence- basically, things were rocky for financial and culture clash reasons to start with, but graphical adventure games were also much more expensive to create, especially when you also needed to first make an engine and not re-use ZIL, and the profits for the genre were also falling. It wasn't due to sales of the last 2 Zork games themselves, or at least I don't have any sources blaming them.


 * The paragraph listing the contents of each Zork compilation reads as overkill—would be fine as a simple list of compilation titles
 * Done


 * Are the primary sources used for the Gameplay section "high-quality reliable sources"? Are there no reliable, secondary sources for that kind of basic background content on such a widely known game?
 * Nope, most RSs don't go into that level of detail of how a text adventure game (this one is particular) works.

Otherwise ready to support—nice work! czar 04:23, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Done, responded inline. -- Pres N  20:52, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Two replies above. Looks good! czar  06:16, 20 November 2022 (UTC)


 * I said something below that piqued my own curiosity, that interactive fiction is known for its robust academic literature, and it got me thinking about the above comment that no sources went into depth on how Zork's gameplay worked, which sounds strange. In Google Scholar there appears to be no shortage of published, peer-review works that go into detail for any of those aspects. In particular, I wanted to call out two works: Montfort 2003 (already cited in the article, albeit briefly) and Murray 1997. Montfort has an entire chapter on Zork and its history that would seem to be crucial for the high-quality sourcing criterion. Murray has multiple sections on the basics of Zork and the impact of its design choices. These were standouts from reading the citations of a very brief search but there is a lot more (including plenty on aspects of the grue, per the below discussion, but mainly about the grue as a literary device to stay out of the dark than anything about falling into a pit). Also found this article by the implementers, appearing in a more reputable format than the New Zork Times. czar  06:59, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Okay, I've integrated both of those books into the article, as well as the IEEE article to an extent. I'm not seeing much else useful- Game Invaders: The Theory and Understanding of Computer Games is another one, but as far as this article is concerned it's just summarizing Montfort as a springboard to talk about "co-presence" in games aka the idea of a player-character. Other ones are surface level or actually about later games. I've mostly used Montfort as a source replacement, without much content added- most of what would be applicable to this article was already present via other sources, particularly Barton, who of course had read the book. Murray gets a but of content added, but I don't think this article would be served by a digression into ludonarrative, especially as she was using it as an early example, not claiming it invented the concept. The IEEE article, ironically, goes too deep on the game, approaching it from the literal programming perspective more than a gameplay perspective (makes sense, given the venue). I did leave some citations to the manuals and auto-retrospective articles to cover some specific details- I stand by my assertion, that there's articles and books on how interactive fiction works, and even how Zork works in that concept, but specific details of the scoring system or bits that would be understood by anyone who actually played the game for a bit are harder to source (a not atypical problem with video game Wikipedia articles). In any case, gameplay is now covered by other sources. -- Pres N  16:46, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
 * That's reasonable. I dug around a bit more and found a few sources to consider but nothing crucial.
 * Rignall/Parish 2014 (via Bonello 2015) discuss the importance/legacy of the Zork parser's "personality", which seems important and not currently mentioned (besides that the parser is like a DM); Parish also mentions that Zork introduced the idea of free traversal between puzzles, which also seems important but might need corroboration
 * Yao, Narasimhan & Hausknecht 2021 is a conference paper but makes a good early point: "Text adventure games such as ZORK I ... have been a testbed for developing autonomous agents that operate using natural language." This is apparent from Google Scholar but I haven't found another paper that puts it so succinctly.
 * Here's a similar one: "Text games, such as Zork [Infocom, 1980], are easily framed as RL environments and make a good testbed for structure learning, knowledge extraction, and transfer across tasks [Branavan et al., 2012]."
 * Another: "individual environments frequently form single benchmarks [to test natural language agent competencies]. Zork ... and its subquests are medium-difficulty environments frequently used in this capacity"
 * czar 20:41, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Will look through these to see if there's anything to pull out for legacy, thanks.
 * Ok, added in a bit in legacy about the parser and it's personality and the game's use in testing NLP systems. -- Pres N  04:09, 24 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Something that caught me on a re-read: In the Zork III plot, the DM turns the player character into a likeness of "himself" but the implementers went out of their way to make the game genderless. Is the DM male or is that assumed?
 * Hashed this out below earlier with another reviewer- the DM is explicitly male, despite the player-character being genderless. Seems like a contradictory choice, but it is what it is.

Apart from those last few minor comments, happy to support on prose. Nice work pulling this together! czar 20:41, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Drive-by comment from A. Parrot
I'm not very familiar with the standards for video game articles and thus don't feel equipped to do a full review of this one, but I'd like to make this point. It's my understanding that the three commercial Zork games increasingly diverge from the student hobby-project that gave rise to them. (This understanding is based on a series of blog posts—e.g., 1, 2, 3—but they seem pretty well-versed in the subject matter.) Zork I is almost entirely derived from the original, Zork II contains a large amount of new material, and Zork III consists mostly of original material and incorporates only a few pieces of the original game. Assuming my understanding is supported by your sources, I feel like the current text significantly underplays those differences, particularly if all iterations of Zork are going to be covered in a single article, per the recent merge. A. Parrot (talk) 22:08, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the comments. On one hand, that's not wrong- the third episode is much more divergent from the original game than the first episode. On the other hand, all three are still very much a variant of the original- significant additions, yes, but it's all ultimately still Zork. And that's not just me saying that; the way I present the process of Zork becoming a three-part game but it being "the game split into three parts, with some stuff added" is very much based on the way that the developers themselves described what they did. On the gripping hand, there's a marked tendency on the part of fans of early adventure games, including the unfortunately non-RS Digital Antiquarian that you linked, to obsess over and over-emphasize the differences between versions of a game. Portraying the game like that ends up giving a massive undue weight to what are ultimately small differences as far as a generalist reader is concerned. What I'm trying to do with the article is describe what the gameplay of Zork is rather than give a precise rundown of how the first version differed from the second—and that's emphasized a bit, perhaps, by how the RSs that I draw from also don't give that rundown, only hobby blogs. -- Pres N  02:21, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

Image review
 * Suggest adding alt text
 * File:4.3_BSD_UWisc_VAX_Emulation_Zork_Intro.png: where is the CC0 claim coming from? It's not compatible with the other license
 * File:Zork_Box.jpg is currently nominated for deletion
 * File:Video_Game_Museum_in_Berlin_(45946263521).jpg is tagged as lacking description. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:11, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Added alt text and missing description, whoops. Removed the BSD license from the image- the software/OS the game is running on is BSD-licensed, which is probably why the uploader added it, but the game itself was/is public domain (mainframe games from the 70s were mostly all freely distributed and modified by numerous people). The uploader released the image as CC0, so I'll leave that one. Czar nominated the other image just yesterday post-nomination, so if that fails it will get removed. -- Pres N  14:38, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Why would the uploader have a right to release the image as CC0? (Also flagging for coords that this review will remain unresolved until the deletion nom is closed one way or the other). Nikkimaria (talk) 02:43, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I thought for a bit why the uploader wouldn't have the right to license an image but the creators of the operating system that the program was running one would, decided that this is why I hate screenshots of 1970s hacker software (where the programs were non-commercial but not explicitly under any particular license, so the rights to screenshots are ambiguous), and just removed the image altogether. It's not critical enough to spend time hurting my brain on theoretical copyright law. Give me CC-BY-SA, fair use, or nothing at all. -- Pres N  02:04, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Note to coords: the other image had issues with was also removed, though the deletion discussion is still open. -- Pres  N  21:16, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Support on prose by Shooterwalker
I gave this two solid run-throughs on copy-edits at WP:GA. I feel comfortable supporting the prose as as Featured Article quality. I also got a decent look at the sources. I wouldn't discourage another set of eyes from looking at it and feel confident this will soon be featured quality. Shooterwalker (talk) 01:32, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

Support by Wehwalt
Support Just a few things. I certainly played Zork I and to a lesser extent the sequels and other Infocom games 40 years ago.
 * "the small computer-using population of the time" I might say "the small population of computer users of the time".
 * Would it be helpful to include some examples of game play, in, say, quote boxes?
 * That's it.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:48, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Done; and that's not usually something that is done, though the image in gameplay does have an example of the start of the game on the screen. -- Pres N  17:36, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Comments from Phlsph7
Disclaimer: I'm only getting started with FA reviewing so please let me know if my comments missed the mark.
 * Earwig shows no copyvio problems
 * Three paragraphs in the plot section have no sources. Maybe, , or  could be used.
 * This is common for video game articles (media articles in general, actually): plot sections are implicitly cited to the work itself (WP:VG/PLOT). Even for works with limited plots such as these, sources (including the manuals you linked) don't actually cover the entire plot.


 * I think "which" should be replaced by "that" (see ) in all the following cases:
 * "Much of the game world is composed of puzzles which must be solved to continue..."
 * "Some areas contain monsters which the player can fight using items or weapons..."
 * "Anderson claims that Blank wrote "40 or 50" iterations of the parser, and describes Daniels as designing puzzles which were then largely implemented..."
 * "a prequel game which added graphical elements..."
 * All done


 * "Their work was inspired by Colossal Cave Adventure, a text-based game which is...": comma before "which"
 * Replaced with "that" instead


 * "Two hundred years later, the ruler Lord Dimwit Flathead renamed the empire to the Great Underground Empire...": "Great Underground Empire" should be in quotes or italic
 * This is incorrect; fictional locations are not quoted or italicized any more than real-world locations are (WP:VG/STYLE)


 * "The player collects the six items from puzzles, but unlike in prior episodes there is a timed component": comma after "episodes"
 * Done


 * "...and Lebling as an research staff member.": should be "as a research staff member"
 * Done


 * "..by the end of May players had managed to completely solve it": comma after "May"
 * Done


 * "..but by the time he heard of the proposal Infocom was in negotiations..": comma after "proposal"
 * Done


 * "By the end of 1980, an Apple II version of Zork I was completed, and was also sold through Personal Software.": no comma after "completed"
 * Done


 * "It bought out Personal Software's stock of Apple II Zork I copies, and began publishing Zork I and II directly by the end of 1981.": no comma after "copies"
 * Done


 * "list as the start of its video game preservation catalogue." and "Zork was the centerpiece of Infocom's game catalogue, and Infocom quickly followed": "catalogue" is non-American English, should be "catalog"
 * Done


 * some rather long sentences that might be split up into several shorter ones:
 * "He felt that the game would be wildly successful and develop a cult following, and urged Infocom to produce tie-in products like maps, hints, and shirts; while the rest of the company was not convinced enough to start producing any products, they did add an object in the game that gave an address for players to mail in for maps and hints in case it proved popular."
 * "A reviewer for Softalk in June 1981, however, while noting that the game was largely considered better than Adventure, claimed that though it was longer and more complex that it was also more "contrived" in its locations and puzzles, and that while the more expansive parser was fun it was not more useful, as players would generally stick with clearer two-word commands."
 * "The Addison-Wesley Book of Atari Software 1984 gave all three parts of Zork an overall A+ rating, calling Zork I "the definitive adventure game", claiming that Zork II "has the same outstanding command flexibility, wry humor, and word recognition of Zork", and concluding that Zork III was "perhaps the most entertaining of the three" and "a highwater mark for subtlety and logic"."
 * All done.


 * A few of your references (Dibbell5657, AW1984, Twisty9899, and VG35) don't use a templates but just contain a link to an anchor in the sources section. I'm not sure about the preferred style in such cases.
 * Yes. This is to avoid repeating the entire book cite template multiple times; it's a fairly common style when using a lot of book sources.


 * The legacy section mentions many influenced titles that are part of the Zork universe. Would it make sense to also mention a few of the most important influenced titles outside the Zork universe?
 * I did this on purpose, as for Zork the influenced titles are, as the section starts with, "the entire adventure and MUD genres, and also to an extent video games in general". After that, picking out individual titles would just be name-dropping, in my opinion.

I hope some of these comments are helpful. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:28, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for reviewing! Overall note: I've removed the tq templates you used- while they're very helpful, at FAC they're banned for technical reasons, as when every FAC nomination has a bunch of them then the whole page has trouble loading. In any case, I've responded to your comments inline. -- Pres N  00:39, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your prompt response and your helpful explanations. One more thing that caught my eye: the sentence "In 2007, Zork was named to a list of the ten most important video games of all time, which formed the start of the game canon at the Library of Congress." seems to be more complicated than it needs to be. What about "In 2007, Zork was included in the game canon by the Library of Congress as one of the ten most important video games of all time."? I had a look at various other passages across the different sections and they all seemed fine to me, so I agree with that the prose fulfils the FA requirements. Phlsph7 (talk) 14:00, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Done. -- Pres N  18:31, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Sorry to pester you, just wanted to clarify if you were finished with the review and if you intended to support or just comment. -- Pres N  22:28, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for reminding me and sorry that I was unclear: for now, I just wanted to comment. I had a look at prose and I think it fulfills the FA requirements. But I haven't checked the article against the other criteria. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:19, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi and thanks for clarifying that you Support on prose. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:22, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Comments from DefThree
I made what was mostly a copy edit to two sections, and was reverted due to this review. Does anyone object to the content of my edits? Even if you do, do you at least see the problems I was trying to fix? It seems like we should make an article as good as possible before passing it as FA. DefThree (talk) 14:28, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
 * If you could, could you write out the problems you see here like the above reviewers? I know it's more work than just doing the edits themselves, but: in addition to it being a pain to have someone try to copyedit stuff in the middle of multiple reviewers making suggestions, some of your edits I disagree with and one is just wrong (the wrong one is the gendering of the Dungeon Master; neither they nor the player is gendered). Of the five or so changes you made, though, pretty much all of them I think need some rewording from how you put it, so it would be helpful to know explicitly what problem you were seeing so that I can make sure to address it directly. -- Pres N  21:09, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
 * The game definitely refers to the Dungeon Master as "he", even at the end. I checked this just to make sure. DefThree (talk) 21:28, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Fixed. -- Pres N  19:57, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

I might remove this whole paragraph from the "Gameplay" section, since it doesn't directly concern gameplay per se: "The original 1977 version of the game was a single release, Zork. When it was converted into a commercial software title, the game was expanded and divided into three episodes, sold as Zork I: The Great Underground Empire, Zork II: The Wizard of Frobozz, and Zork III: The Dungeon Master; most of the added and expanded sections are in Zork II and III. The original Zork also contained multiple ways of moving between the areas used in the three episodes, which were removed in favor of a single exit at the end of each game."

The splitting of episodes seems to be explained in the Development section below. DefThree (talk) 21:13, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
 * It is, but the gameplay section also discusses things that pertain only to one part or episode of the game, which makes it confusing to the reader if no discussion is made that it was one game and then three episodes. That paragraph also covers gameplay differences between the two versions, which doesn't make sense without mentioning that there are two different versions. -- Pres N  19:57, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
 * How about trimming that paragraph to "The original 1977 version of the game was a single release, Zork. When it was converted into a commercial software title, the game was divided into three episodes, with new sections added to the second and third episodes." That way, gameplay remains the focus. It seems fairly obvious that some pathways would have to be removed, so there's no need for that last sentence. DefThree (talk) 05:22, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Done.

The last paragraph of the Gameplay section could also be trimmed, with references to individual Zork episodes all going into the Plot section. DefThree (talk) 00:19, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
 * The references are to gameplay elements, though, not plot elements, so they should remain here. -- Pres N  19:57, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I found it odd that the thief was only mentioned in the Gameplay section, and the wizard was only mentioned in the Plot section, but I suppose that's because the wizard is more integral to the plot. I feel like there should be a bit more about the thief and how he shows up or takes objects randomly (anywhere underground, not just in the maze). I feel like I read something about how the thief was programmed, but I can't find it now. Also, it could be mentioned that the game keeps track of your "health", such as when you get injured by the troll or thief. If there is no other valid source for this, Infocom's InvisiClues would likely qualify. And again, InvisiClues should probably be mentioned by name in the body of this article.DefThree (talk) 07:50, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Done- expanded the thief bit some, and added an invisiclues bit in development. I had left it out because "Invisiclues" was an Infocom-wide thing, not just a Zork thing, but since it was started by Dornbrook/the Zork Users Group I agree that was a mistake.

I don't like calling individual locations "areas"; for example, "the game's hundreds of areas", or "if there is a lamp in the area". I prefer "location" or "room", though not all locations are presented as rooms. "area" should only refer to a group of locations. DefThree (talk) 01:12, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Hmm, I was going with area because "location" to me implies always a small place, but I can see the argument either way, and now that I look at how I used the word throughout I do a couple times use "area" to mean a set of rooms, not just one. Changed to use "location" or room when I mean one spot. -- Pres N  19:57, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

I guess I can see your objection to my edit to "Zork does not follow a linear storyline, instead relying on a set of puzzles and locations that the player can solve in mostly any order." Maybe instead say "Zork largely allows the player free range in exploring the game area and solving puzzles; for the most part, things do not have to be done in a particular order." Also, it looks like some of that paragraph is written in-universe style, and such details are hardly essential. Maybe replace the rest of the paragraph with "The setting is the Great Underground Empire, the history of which is established in-game and in manuals." DefThree (talk) 21:03, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Replaced with "Zork does not follow a linear storyline; instead, the player can explore the locations of the game and solve the puzzles in mostly any order, except when a puzzle or location depends on an item from a prior puzzle."
 * I disagree about cutting the rest of the paragraph: of course it's in-universe, this is the plot section, so it discusses the plot. Spending a few sentences explaining the setting/backstory of the game—especially when it's pretty much the only story in the game beyond the player's own actions—is not only acceptable in a plot section but expected. "There is a backstory in the manual" would be an odd thing to say in a section that is supposed to summarize the plot. -- Pres N  19:57, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Instead of "Long before the present day", maybe say "Long before the time the game is set in". DefThree (talk) 05:32, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Done.

replied inline. -- Pres N  19:57, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Replied inline again. -- Pres N  01:43, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

I apologize for editing the article again, but spelling everything out here didn't seem feasible. DefThree (talk) 04:29, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Ok, I see that you're making an edit every few hours, so just let me know when you think you're finished so I can review the changes. -- Pres N  21:03, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

Should there be an "add-ons" section? I tried to remove some redundancy regarding hints, but I'm not sure the chronology works, unless we create a new section just on that topic. DefThree (talk) 19:34, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
 * No, I don't think we need a whole section for two sentences on add-ons. It's perfectly fine to mention where you put it that they added invisiclues later even though it came out a year after the rest of the add-ons. -- Pres N  22:44, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

From the intro: "The developers wanted to make a similar game that was able to understand more complicated sentences than Adventure two-word commands." This isn't quite mentioned in the body of the article. It's clear that they were aiming to make something more sophisticated than Adventure, but the part about two-word commands doesn't currently seem to be mentioned except in the intro, where no source is cited. DefThree (talk) 12:42, 12 November 2022 (UTC)


 * My edit might solve this, though there is probably another source for the point about two-word commands. DefThree (talk) 16:00, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
 * It was actually in the history source used in development that discussed their reasons for why they thought their proposed game would be better than Adventure, though I agree that it wasn't in the article proper any more. -- Pres N  21:15, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

In Zork 2, the baseball puzzle and bank seem to have taken an awful lot of criticism. If there is any valid source for this, one or both could be discussed. DefThree (talk) 13:56, 12 November 2022 (UTC)


 * I see now that this was addressed in the old Zork 2 article. It even says that Infocom apologized for the baseball puzzle, so that would seem noteworthy. DefThree (talk) 17:05, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Found somewhere to put it, though I didn't name them specifically- in general I'm leary of getting into the reception of individual puzzles. The audience for this article is not people who already know the puzzles of the game, so naming the puzzles in reception without specifically talking about them earlier is not useful. (Also, Infocom weren't apologizing for it being difficult, they were apologizing for it requiring knowledge of baseball, which isn't generally popular outside of America.) -- Pres N  21:15, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

I feel like this doesn't accurately reflect the review, which seemed more positive than it's being portrayed as. In context, the "contrived" reference doesn't really sound like a criticism. DefThree (talk) 22:34, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure how "On the other hand, if some of the locations seem a bit contrived, the great number of them makes up for that." has "contrived" as anything but a criticism. I've reworded it ]https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Zork&diff=1121571835&oldid=1121545088 like so], however, to not make it seem so negative a review. -- Pres N  00:42, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

The sword is more than just a weapon. It warns of danger, and appears in all three episodes. The brass lantern should probably be mentioned explicitly as well. DefThree (talk) 04:55, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Why? What out-of-game notability makes them meaningful to a reader? None of the reviews or retrospectives call out the sword or lantern as particularly impactful, not the way, say, grues are. -- Pres N  19:55, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

You added an extra "is established". I didn't like the wording about not following a linear storyline, because it obviously is linear from one episode to the next, but I guess that's referring to the backstory happening centuries previously. Further down in the article, I'm also not sure why Zork III would be "less linear" than the others. If anything, it would seem more linear, due to the earthquake. Even if those are Lebling's words, he may have misspoken. I feel like the falling into pits aspect should be mentioned. DefThree (talk) 16:45, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Fixed the double-established. The word Lebling used was "straightforward", which in the context here is a better word than "linear". I agree, though I wait for Czar to respond since it was in response to his comment above. -- Pres N  21:09, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Honestly, we're talking about a classic, genre-defining game in a genre known for its academic popularity (interactive fiction) and yet there is this little analysis of ludonarrative and core gameplay features? Unless a source mentions the importance of the grue origin story, whether it's death by pit or by grue, it's trivia.
 * Separately, I'm having a hard time understanding the context of your recent edits, DefThree. I see a lot of editing in of small details that are not necessary for a general audience to understand Zork. I'd recommend keeping those edits to a minimum and focusing on the general FA criteria. The small details belong in another wiki, not an encyclopedia article for a general reader. czar  06:23, 20 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Hi, I was wondering if you felt in a position to either support or oppose this nomination? Obviously, neither is obligatory. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:33, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I pretty much support this. I would like to see the glowing sword mentioned, but I realize why that might be problematic. DefThree (talk) 01:50, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

"nor were parts of the game specific to one developer; instead, whenever one of the developers had an idea they liked, that developer would add it to the game". That sounds contradictory. DefThree (talk) 01:33, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Changed the "parts" to "aspects". The idea is that it wasn't like one person was in charge of writing, one person in charge of puzzles, etc. like a modern game, they just did whatever they were interested in and cobbled it together, even if they naturally gravitated towards different things. -- Pres N  01:45, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

Source review
Footnote numbers refer to this version. More shortly. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:52, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Some archive links don't work for me; can you check these? I would remove any that turn out to be unarchivable.
 * FN 10 -- this one comes up with a message saying the content can't be viewed on that domain.
 * FN 47 -- I get a blank page
 * FN 49 -- I get some scripting error messages.
 * 47 and 49 (including clicking through to the pdf) work for me? Removed the #10 archive, though, none of the snapshots had a working video. -- Pres N  21:55, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

OK on the archive links. One more minor point: That's everything I can find; sources are reliable and I can see no formatting issues. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:02, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Any reason not to credit the authors (Dave Langford and John Clute) for the Encyclopedia of SF citation?
 * None, other than I missed their initials at the end- now added. -- Pres N  22:04, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Pass. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:06, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

Ian Rose (talk) 15:40, 28 November 2022 (UTC)