Talk:Pitfall!/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Indrian (talk · contribs) 00:02, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Reviewer: SnowFire (talk) 00:05, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

Another VCS game article, another GA Review. Let’s do this! Comments to follow. Indrian (talk) 00:02, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

• Okay, wow, I certainly never meant to take this long to review. I am so sorry this has been in limbo. I will have it done by the end of the week. Indrian (talk) 14:25, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Status query

Indrian, Andrzejbanas, what is the status of this nomination/review? It's been open for almost eleven weeks at this point. Thank you. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:53, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Not sure! Just waiting on Indrian who definitely got to my previous reviews pretty quickly. Indrian did start looking over the intro briefly of this article earlier per the edit history, but since then has been busy. Andrzejbanas (talk) 11:53, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

It's been more than three months since Indrian claimed this review. @Andrzejbanas:, I happen to be in GA review "debt" having promised a general review of something in gaming to another editor. If you want, I'd be happy to take over this review if Indrian doesn't chime in in the next few days or so. SnowFire (talk) 01:31, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

It doesn't bother me personally, so you have my ok at least. Andrzejbanas (talk) 14:56, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, that’s fine. I just have not had the time. Sorry. Indrian (talk) 16:36, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

It's all good! I hope things are good for you @Indrian :). I'm good whenever you are @SnowFire. Andrzejbanas (talk) 15:08, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

Review

• First of all, disclaimer goes here that practically anything brought up is a suggestion not a mandate. Please feel free to push back on anything short of a policy violation. I'll offer a few stylistic suggestions, but there are many styles that can all work, and it's fine to keep yours rather than use mine! If there's something really important, I'll mark it as such.
• Citations in general: First off, WP:CITEVAR is a policy, you're free to use whatever citation scheme you like best. However... as a suggestion... I think the "all sources, then all short references to sources" tends to work better for articles sourced almost entirely to scholarly books. If you're including things like website citations in, then the ability to have the really narrow citation widths is reduced. My vague suggestion is that if you're always citing the source overall, or always citing the same page range of a source, to consider integrating the source into the citation entirely. Then reserve the "Sources" section just for sources where you're citing different page ranges. This means that, say, Marriott/ Blanchett 1982 / Kohler 2012 / etc. would skip the short citation and the full cite would be there directly (since it's just a single cite anyway, so no need for the second layer of clicking). Montfort & Bogost 2009 would keep the existing citation style since it's citing different page ranges. Happy to do a sample edit if you're interested. But it's optional if you prefer the existing style.

I think I'd like to keep it. On the chance that we expand on the article, I feel like material will come from more published journals/books/etc. in the future as scholarly information on video games seems to come more often than we will from websites, etc. in the near future. Andrzejbanas (talk) 17:47, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

I guess, but even if that's true, I'd argue that you might as well integrate website citations directly rather than use the short form style for htem. You're already doing that for some of the cites (e.g. "Software Report Card"), so why not all? But like I said, it's CITEVAR, so it's up to you.

I think I'm misunderstanding what you mean. Could you make an edit to show me an example (either here/the article or on a sandbox?) Andrzejbanas (talk) 04:53, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Okay, I think i've cleared these out. Andrzejbanas (talk) 20:45, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Not how I do it, but the style now is consistent, so looks good. As an FYI, in articles that exclusively use short citations like this one, you you can use {{Reflist|22em}} or the like to tell Reflist to have narrower columns; it's a bad idea if some cites are to full cites, but is fine in a case like this now that it's all short cites. (You can see an example at Antiochus_X_Eusebes#References or the {{Reflist}} documentation.) SnowFire (talk) 04:53, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

• The Edge "The Making Of: Pitfall!" citation is duplicated. Unless the archived sites are different between those two weeks and that difference is important (doubtful), just combine them.

I don't believe it is here. The Edge article is separated between two webpages. To cite the content on each page, it required two sources. Andrzejbanas (talk) 17:47, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

It's the same article, though, just different pages. You don't need separate full citations to the same printed book for different page ranges. If anything, this is the case where you should do the existing style for other website cites. (Also, don't write "Edge Staff" or "Staff" as the author - just omit the author if it's not known.) i.e. create one cite for the overall article, and used a shortened cite like "Edge 2009 p. 1" and "Edge 2009 p. 2", linking the page if desired. I'm happy to do a test edit and immediately revert it if you want to just see what I'm talking about.

I'm leaning towards separate ones. I'll remove the author. It's that the pages aren't all "loaded", you have to load a unique web page so you should have to click more than one link to get it. They are "page numbers" per se, but it's not like a pdf viewer or anything. Do you know what I mean? Andrzejbanas (talk) 04:53, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

• The Activision Instructions citation also appears duplicated. I don't think it's implied that David Crane wrote the introduction to the "How to seek your fortune with..." (which includes his pedigree), just the tips.

In the instruction manual, there is a section that appears to be credited to Crane himself. I'm assuming good faith that it is actually him (the tone and writing is different.) Andrzejbanas (talk) 17:47, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I read a PDF of the instruction manual online, but the words you're citing do not appear to be written by Crane. Or if they were, he was speaking in the third person which is unusual in English. Even if Crane really wrote it, it's one source.

Fair, it's such a short sample, I guess I was being over specific. Andrzejbanas (talk) 04:53, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

• I don't think we need a citation that the Atari VCS was renamed. That's a bit off-topic and trivially checkable at the Atari 2600 article, seems a SKYBLUE deal in-context.

Ehhh, I've done for it others for more anachronistic issues. When the game was released, the system was known as Atari Video Game System. We should probably reflect that (as I have with other Atari 2600 articles) as the system was only known as Atari 2600 much later in life (and what is what most people refer to it as nowadays...at least in my own social circles). Andrzejbanas (talk) 17:47, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

I'm not saying to remove the information. I'm saying to remove the citation. If for some reason this article had to say something like "Washington, the capital of the United States", you don't need to cite an atlas or a government document to show that fact. (More seriously, it's obviously harmless in a near-GA level article, but this comes up in articles of marginal notability. They'll throw in a blizzard of unrelated citations to other stuff mentioned to try to disguise the fact that there aren't any citations on the topic itself.)

Okay, fair. I've removed it. Andrzejbanas (talk) 04:53, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

• • The player controls Pitfall Harry, who is seeking treasure in a jungle with a 20-minute time limit
• This could be read as the jungle having a 20-minute time limit. Not a huge concern, but I feel like there could be better phrasing regardless. "The player controls Pitfall Harry, who has a time limit of 20 minutes to seek treasure in a jungle" perhaps?

Good call. Changed. Andrzejbanas (talk) 17:47, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

• • The game world is populated by enemies such as snakes and scorpions and hazards including quicksand and logs that variously cause the player to lose lives or points.
• This sentence needs commas, or refactoring. I dislike too many commas too, I revert people who add them needlessly, but... this is just breathless. There's some conjunction issues elsewhere in the article too (e.g. the "These sequels for consoles..." sentence in Reception, which probably needs semicolons separating the groups by console, and using "and" for groups of 2 rather than a comma).

I think I just cut down the details, probably best to focus on gameplay here instead of specific details (as I'm not making it clear which do what, the extra detail isn't really needed.) Andrzejbanas (talk) 17:47, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

• • After completing it, he began attempting to developing a game
• "Attempting to develop", but I think this whole paragraph could use a work-over. This is a close repetition of "attempting" (it was just in the previous sentence), and moreover, the "attempt" isn't even that interesting? We know he succeeded. I'd only talk about "attempts" if something interesting happens in the middle, i.e. he attempted to make the game in 1981 but stopped and came back later. Given that he did indeed make Pitfall!, I'd cut to the chase. Maybe something like: "Crane started with creating a new realistic-style walking animation for a person on the Atari 2600 hardware. After completing it, he fashioned a game around it. He used a jungle setting with items to collect and enemies to avoid, and the result became Pitfall!"

Sure, I tried to create some hybrid of this. Andrzejbanas (talk) 17:47, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

• • The game has been described as influential in the platform game genre
• This might be over-qualified. While I think some of the later parts are too nice to the game, this may not be nice enough? I'd just say it was influential, unless there's somebody who's argued it's not.

Didn't really find anyone arguing this wasn't an important game, but I've re-phrased this. Andrzejbanas (talk) 17:47, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

• • ...genre has been included among the greatest video games of all time
• "And" has been included. I think the Wikilink starts too soon, too - should just link starting with "greatest".

Done. Andrzejbanas (talk) 17:47, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

• • ...as well as being included as secret extras in later Activision published titles.
• This is another breathless sentence sans commas, but it's okay I guess. But surely "as a secret extra"? It's "titles" that is plural, not Pitfall! itself. Is this really even relevant, though? If it is, fine, but I'm not so sure.

I tried re-phrasing a bit. Andrzejbanas (talk) 17:47, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

I still think "as a secret extra" is probably what you mean. "titles" is already plural, but pluralizing "extras" makes it sound like Pitfall! was included as multiple secrets, which seems doubtful.

Right on, changed. Andrzejbanas (talk) 04:53, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

• • Pitfall! has been described as a platform game by Nick Montfort and Ian Bogost, authors of Racing the Beam.
• This also seems over-qualified. Are there people who say that Pitfall! is not a platform game? If not, and this is uncontroversial, then no need to cite the source in prose. That's generally used for opinions, like in the Reception section, or for contested factual statements (or things like scientific discoveries). So just: Pitfall! is a platform game."

Well, genre is subjective and at the time, the term "platform game" was not commonly used (didn't really pop up regularly until british magazines used it in the late 80s, and most contemporary reviews seem to refer to it as being an "adventure"-themed game, which would be confusing for contemporary readers as most games seemed to be described by reviewers by "theme" than gameplay. This is why I state it this way here. Andrzejbanas (talk) 17:18, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

• • does not feature side-scrolling, but features gameplay that allows for a new screen to appear when Harry moves to the edge of the screen.
• That's not the "gameplay" that is "allowing" this, though. The gameplay just is that, and the code is what "allows" it. Either should be " does not feature side-scrolling; when Harry moves to the edge of the screen, a new screen is loaded", or " does not feature side-scrolling, but instead loads one screen at a time, with a new screen appearing when Harry moves to the edge." Or something like that.

Changed. Andrzejbanas (talk) 17:18, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

• • ranging from a diamond ring worth 5000 extra points to a money bag worth 2000 points
• Nit: Shouldn't this be reversed? It seems more dramatic to go from low-to-high.

Agreed. Looks like it's been swapped since reviewing this. Andrzejbanas (talk) 17:47, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

• • Pitfall Harry moves left or right
• Surely "left and right", right?

Probably interchangeable, but I'm happy to switch this. Andrzejbanas (talk) 17:47, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

• • The player can also lose points by interacting with hazards, such as falling down a hole which will make the player lose 100 points or rolling logs which cause point loss depending how long contact is made with them.
• "Interacting" is a strange verb here. "Colliding", perhaps? I don't think "also" is required (we weren't told about another way to lose points just before). And I don't think the details on rolling log point loss is that interesting. Maybe just "such as falling down a hole or being in contact with rolling logs."

Uhh, I think "colliding" is a bit weird as you don't "collide" with a hole. I've given it a re-phrase though. Andrzejbanas (talk) 17:47, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

• Okay, that's enough for now. Just to skip ahead, a few comments on later sections...
• File:A2600 Pitfall.png says on the Low Resolution criteria: "Yes: Screen size is reduced, though pixel-for-pixel resolution is preserved." which makes 0 sense. I'm not asking for it to be scaled down (In fact, I'm in favor of revising our policy on low resolution for fair use images), but probably better to be honest here and just say that no, the resolution is not reduced (if it wasn't?), but that's because the Atari's native resolution was really low anyway.
• Video Game Reviews template: Per WP:VG/REC, star graphics are deprecated. Just use 5/5, 4.5/5, etc.

News to me. Done. Andrzejbanas (talk) 17:47, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

• I'm a bit skeptical of some of the synonyms for "said" used, like stated, proclaimed, etc. See MOS:SAID. But maybe something for the later parts of the deep dive.

Yeah if you want to point out specifics, I think we can fix it later.

SnowFire (talk) 00:05, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Snowfire:. I have had a very busy week with personal and career requirements, but I should be able to taclke this perhaps closer to the weekend if that is alright. Thanks for tackling this review. Andrzejbanas (talk) 12:38, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

@SnowFire:, I've responded and made some updates per your suggestions/requests. Andrzejbanas (talk) 17:47, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Some outstanding comments above, but to go deeper some...

• When he was turned down, this led to Crane and other Atari programmers to leave the company To be clear, I'm very opposed to crazy copyeditors who try to cut every sentence down to a nub, and think that adding some words can help for clarity... but... this is needlessly wordy. It's obvious in context the rejection was what led to it, and you can use the simple past tense here: "When he was turned down, Crane and other Atari programmers left the company..."

You are not wrong. Changed. Andrzejbanas (talk) 04:53, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

• • Crane stated his own... Crane explained...
• More MOS:SAID things. It's not really an "explanation", just a quote, if a tad promotional one. (The next "stated" in that paragraph is fine I guess.)

Sure. Changed. Andrzejbanas (talk) 04:53, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

• I'm not sure the multiple sentences dedicated to a story about tweaking the behavior of jumping off an alligator head is really due weight for an encyclopedic summary. Isn't this kind of timing tweaking bog standard during development? It'd be more shocking if Crane didn't find anything that needed tweaking. Seems like it could be compressed to "Crane changed the required timing of jumping to be more lenient after his playtesting" or the like. (Optional if you feel the full Crane quote is important, just not clear if that's the case to me.)

Uh, I think the fact he describes it as "almost unplayable" is kind of what marked it as important to me. Andrzejbanas (talk) 04:53, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

• • To develop the sprites for the enemies, Crane tried to make them recognizable representations through the limited capacity of the Atari 2600, which resulted in what Crane described as "a lot of trial and error"
• This sentence doesn't really cohere, making it sound like making "representations" was a prerequisite to "developing" sprites rather than just the same task? And same issue as above, is trial and error really so unusual or surprising as to require a direct quote? The source doesn't seem to limit it to just "enemies", either. Maybe something like: "Crane tried to make the sprite artwork for obstacles and the environment recognizable to players, despite the limitations of the Atari 2600. The process involved a lot of trial-and-error."

Slightly tweaked, but yes I agree your phrasing is better. Andrzejbanas (talk) 04:53, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

• • Crane declared that...
• You know what I'm going to say! This isn't really a declaration, like he was a town crier announcing news in the commons.

Aw, but wouldn't that be great! ;) Changed. Andrzejbanas (talk) 04:53, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

• • Crane continued that hundreds of these hours were made to fit Pitfall! into a 4 kilobyte ROM cartridge.
• I mean, yes, but also no. This is too core to Atari programming IMO to set aside as a separate thing. Perhaps "Much of Crane's time was spent optimizing and compressing the code so that it would fit into a 4 kilobyte ROM cartridge." or the like? That refocuses on the real work, the optimization.

Agreed. I've changed it here but made it so it's "four" rather than "4", as I believe there is some sort of standard rule for that. Andrzejbanas (talk) 04:53, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

• • Pitfall!'s cartridge was required to hold graphics such as the Activision logo and multiple animation frames for the game characters
• I mean, it had to hold graphics for everything, right? Why are we calling these out specifically?

Ehh fair. I think I was trying to say that beyond the game itself, it also had to fit stuff that was obligatory like the activision logo. But i'm just going to toss this, it's not terribly exciting info that you can't figure out on your own assumptions. Andrzejbanas (talk) 04:53, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

• "proto-types" - nit, this word is almost never hyphenated.

Fixed. Andrzejbanas (talk) 04:53, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

• "Crane stated that " - Yeah, just "said" here too.

Done. Andrzejbanas (talk) 04:53, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

SnowFire (talk) 08:03, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Back to you @SnowFire:. Andrzejbanas (talk) 04:53, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

FYI, there are still two pending comments above. (Which, as usual, it's fine to say "No thanks it's fine" to, but just looking for confirmation they were seen). See "This also seems over-qualified." and "That's not the "gameplay" above.

Thanks for clarifying these. I simply just missed them. :) I've responded above. Andrzejbanas (talk) 17:18, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

• In Release: "the Atari Computer and Atari 5200 in March" - You didn't wikilink Atari Computer in the previous introduction sentence. Maybe best to wikilink it here for what this was referring to?

Sure. Had it link to the Atari 8-bit family now. Andrzejbanas (talk) 17:18, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

• "These include Activision Classics (1998) for the PlayStation, Activision Anthology (2002) and for portable devices as Activision Hits Remixed in 2006 for the PlayStation Portable." The 2002 release was for the PlayStation 2, right? Best say so, current phrasing makes it sound like it was two games both on PSP.

Sure. Andrzejbanas (talk) 17:18, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

• "Pitfall! was later included ... The game was also a secret extra in future Activision published titles " - Rather than speak "from 1982" so to speak, I think it's fine to speak from 2023 here and reformat these to the simple past tense.

Sure. Andrzejbanas (talk) 17:18, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

• "reviewers often complemented" - You mean complimented, although I would recommend using a different word anyway like "praised". Complimenting usually has a mood of being done to living beings, or perhaps organizations.

Sure. Done. Andrzejbanas (talk) 17:18, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

• • Pitfall! was awarded "Best Adventure Video Game" at the 4th annual Arkie Awards in 1983.{{sfn|Kunkel|Katz|1983|p=30}}{{sfn|Kunkel|Katz|1983|p=108}}
• If you want to cite multiple pages within the same citation, don't use a repeat, use {{sfn|Kunkel|Katz|1983|pp=30; 108}}

Done. Andrzejbanas (talk) 17:18, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

• • declared it's gameplay as excellent but it's graphics and sound as merely good, noting that the game "requires more arcade-type skills than intuition or logic"
• Two its / it's mixups. It's cool to dig up contemporary reviews but this is one paragraph and the "graphics and sound as merely good" is a strong thing to take from a non-prose summary that literally just says "Graphics/Sound Rating: Good." If they can't be bothered to write more than that, it's difficult for Wikipedia to write more than that. I would drastically cut this sentence down - maybe just "gave the Intellivision version a seven out of ten rating". You can include the quote about the arcade-type skills if you want, I guess, although I'd be fine with just straight cutting it too.

Done. Andrzejbanas (talk) 17:18, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

• Can I ask for more details on the "highest selling video game from late 1982 to the first quarter of 1983" cite? I attempted to look up Electronic Games June 1983, but I don't see anything interesting on p. 49 there: [1] .

Sure. I've clarified the source. It can be found here. Andrzejbanas (talk) 17:18, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

• • Scott Alan Marriott of the online game database AllGame awarded the game five stars, their highest rating
• No shade to AllGame, but... to be clear, I don't think they were THAT prestigious a source, so this sounds a bit pretentious. Maybe something like " a 5 stars out of 5 score" and let readers come to the conclusion it was the highest ranking? (I will say it does look like 9 games made it to 5/5... I guess that's still reasonably picky compared to modern score inflation.

[2]) Also, while we're here, "expressing" to "writing".

Fair, re-phrased to clarify the issues. Andrzejbanas (talk) 17:18, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

• • and stated that the Atari 5200 version of the game had poor controls while the Intellivision version "needlessly employs a second button for letting go of vines".
• These sound like complaints, so it kinda naturally contrasts with being included at all. Maybe something like "although" in there? Perhaps: "although he criticized the Atari 5200 version of the game for poor controls and the Intellivision version for requiring a second button for letting go of vines." (I don't think it's a high value quote.)

Re-phrased. I don't really like saying "Althought" per WP:HOWEVER because it makes it sounds like one point has more value than another one. Andrzejbanas (talk) 17:18, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

• • Electronic Fun with Computers & Games in 1984, Flux (1995) where it placed 33rd and Game Informer (2001) where it placed 41st, and Time in 2012.
• I was thinking this was gonna be an Oxford comma issue, but that lets you leave off the last comma, not the second-to-last comma in a grouping. So: "..where it placed 33rd, Game Informer (2001)..." You can keep or remove the comma after "41st" to taste.

Okay I think I fixed. this. Andrzejbanas (talk) 17:18, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

SnowFire (talk) 04:53, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

@SnowFire:, Thanks again for going through things, I've edited and responded to your suggestions. Andrzejbanas (talk) 17:18, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

• Backing up: On the "These include Activision Classics (1998)..." line in Release... while not using the Oxford comma is fine in most situations, I think you've made a sentence that requires it. The problem is you've made a garden-path sentence where someone reading left-to-right will read "Activision Anthology (2002) for PlayStation 2 and for portable devices" which sounds like 2002 Anthology was also on the GBA or something, only to realize later on that the sentence stops parsing. A comma will help ensure that doesn't happen.

Fixed, I believe. Andrzejbanas (talk) 16:23, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

• "Pitfall! was described by authors Montfort and Bogost in Racing the Beam as an important early platform game" - Well, I feel this is more relevant in the Legacy section where talking about views of Atari historians is more reasonable. I still think that the initial comment on Racing the Beam calling it a platform game in the "Gameplay" section can be cut down to something like "has been described" and this sentence in the "Legacy" section kept, perhaps. But it's up to you if you really feel this explicit attribution is important enough to do twice.

I feel like to capture the tone of their attitude towards it the quote is important here. For example, they state "important platform game" instead of "important piece of work" or even "important video game", etc. Andrzejbanas (talk) 16:23, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

• • They declared that unlike other Atari 2600 games, Pitfall! offered a much longer game compared to previous Atari games which were either ports of arcade games which were designed to be shorter experience in order to gain more coins from the player, or games such as Adventure which could be beaten in about two minutes.
• Multiple issues here. First, MOS:SAID, I suggest "They wrote that". Second, it seems like we're repeating ourselves: "unlike other Atari 2600 games... compared to previous Atari games". We can probably cut one of these. Also, shouldn't we wikilink Adventure, and perhaps also clarify that it was just the easiest difficulty level of Adventure that is so short? Maybe something like: "They wrote that Pitfall! was a much longer game than previous Atari VCS games. These other games were often ports of arcade games which were designed to be a short experience to keep the player feeding the machine coins, but even native games could be rather short—the easiest difficulty of Adventure can be completed in just two minutes."

Sure. I don't want to include the bits about the easy mode on Adventure (which is surely what they are referring to) because they don't specifically state that. It's perhaps not a great comparison as Adventure on harder modes will definitely take longer due to the random locations of items, but they don't specifically state that. Pitfall! can definitely be a "bigger" game than most atari games, but I might as well not misquote or misattribute them here. Andrzejbanas (talk) 16:23, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

• "The authors stated that" - "said" works.

Done. Andrzejbanas (talk) 16:23, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

• "...and offered a variety of actions built upon a few core game play options" - "gameplay" is almost always one word. This whole sentence is also a little too close a paraphrasing from the original passage, IMO. Perhaps something like: "The authors said that Pitfall! built upon the graphic adventure game genre of Adventure to create an experience similar to later open world games. The world is too large to be contemplated all at once, and a few core gameplay mechanics allow a variety of more complex actions and possibilities."
• "... fundamentals--like jumping around, avoiding enemies and obstacles, and collecting stuff--have..." - In general, don't edit quotes. However, a very rare exception can be just typographical issues - e.g. replacing long s with a vanilla s. The ASCII double hyphen is almost always a stand-in for an mdash, so maybe replace those with — ?

Sure. I doesn't change any of the meaning here so I'm okay. Andrzejbanas (talk) 16:23, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

• "Pitfall: The Mayan Adventure (1994) for the Super Nintendo and Sega Genesis (1994)" - Be consistent. Either stick the release date after the platform both times, or have a single release date after the title.

Removed the second instance of this. Andrzejbanas (talk) 16:23, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

• As written, it looks like Pitfall II: The Lost Caverns is linked twice. It's best to not require a mouse hover to see they're two different links (note that hovers don't work on mobile anyway). Maybe something like making the first link to be Pitfall II: Lost Caverns (1984) and the second link to be Pitfall II: Lost Caverns (1985)?

Sure, Done. I initially thought that it was fine as one sentence was related to console and non-console games, but might as well clarify it. Andrzejbanas (talk) 16:23, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

• "Pitfall! remained the game that Crane has been associated with" - Maybe throw in "most" for "most associated"?

Yeah definitely missing most here. Andrzejbanas (talk) 16:23, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

• • He continued to make video games later making advergames in the 1990s finding that making games with a limited bandwidth was "more like the systems of the past"
• I don't think this is that interesting for the Pitfall! article. It's not really that important that Crane thought 1995-era Internet was closer to old Atari games. If kept, this sentence definitely needs a comma or two anyway, but I'd rather just cut it entirely - it's not Pitfall! related.

Fair, probably would better fit in his own article. Removed. Andrzejbanas (talk) 16:23, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

• • In 2012, Crane announced a Kickstarter campaign for Jungleventure, a spiritual successor to Pitfall! Early funding was not strong, which had Crane respond that his critics had a lack of vision on what he was trying to accomplish.
• I get that this is based off the Gamasutra / GameDev article which was written before the Kickstarter closed, but... we know the results of the Kickstarter (https://www.kick starter .com/projects/jungleventure/david-cranes-jungle-adventure-0 , although you'll have to hack out the spaces due to the spam blacklist). Rather than merely reporting that early funding was not strong, we know it failed by a zillion. And frankly, Crane's whining here isn't that relevant, nor does it need to be highlighted (unless we're trying to make him look bad!). It was his own fault - with the benefit of hindsight, everyone knows nowadays that Kickstarters with demos and at least some basic work do way way better than just "gimme some money and maybe I'll make a game," plus he didn't do all the tiering and bonus nonsense considered de rigeur later. Also, where is "Jungleventure" coming from? Both the GameDev article and the Kickstarter say "Jungle Adventure." Maybe something like: "In 2012, Crane started a Kickstarter to fund a potential spiritual successor to the Pitfall! series, but it fell far short of his ambitious funding goal."

All good. I think when I was trying to read about Crane's incomplete game, all the articles sort of had a tone of "what is he thinking?" which was the main buzz about it at the time. Not sure where I got "Jungleventure" from, but let's stick to the titles. Most likely me mis-reading things when I was putting the article together. Andrzejbanas (talk) 16:23, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

• General citation comment: I am not going to demand a change here, because I think this rule is incredibly dumb, and if SnowFire were put in charge of the APA or Chicago Manual of Style it's the first thing I would change. But, technically, by the Template:Sfn documentation, you're supposed to use "pp" for page ranges, not "p" (e.g. changing {{sfn|Montfort|Bogost|2009|p=99-100}} into {{sfn|Montfort|Bogost|2009|pp=99-100}}. Why this inane rule was ever developed aside from creating needless busywork I don't know; everything works fine with a simple p= and it's arguably more intuitive (stands for "page", what on earth does "pp" mean? page-page?). I leave it up to you if you want to bring this article into compliance with the documentation (it's more a FA-level criteria, not a GA-level criterion), just mentioning it as an FYI.

We're almost there! SnowFire (talk) 05:39, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Had no idea about that rule! I have to admit I don't really get it either, but whatever, might as well make it better. I've always never felt confident enough for a FA for any article I've worked one, but at this point barring any changes from you, I'm ready to tackle them. Anything else @SnowFire: ? Andrzejbanas (talk) 16:23, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

I see you made the change anyway, but FWIW, the bit about mentioning 2 minutes was Adventure's easy mode is in Racing the Beam p. 112, at least the version I checked. So that isn't original research, at least. One more nit from doing a read-through:

• Each number in the counter used 8 bits to load certain details such as the background, trees, ground and object patterns, allowing 255 screens to occupy fewer than 50 bytes of ROM

• I feel like this is muddled, and also think that this is if anything more interesting a place to "spend" extra sentences than the earlier parts. "Each number in the counter used 8 bits" isn't quite correct. The counter was 8 bits, and the individual bits (when interpreted as numbers) described how to build the scene. The existing phrasing makes it sound like a bunch of 8 bit numbers. I'd take this whole sentence back to the drawing board: Maybe "The 8-bit counter's individual bits were used by the code to determine how to draw the scene. For example, bits 6-7 determined the pattern of trees; similar logic described the background, ground, and object patterns. This allowed 255 screens to occupy fewer than 50 bytes of ROM."

Okay, doing an overall look through the article holistically... I think we're in a good spot. Heavily based on Racing the Beam, but it's by far the best source on the topic, so this is proper IMO. I already called out the one section I felt was a bit of a close paraphrasing, so think we're good on that. Looking at the other GA criteria, I think they're met - neutral, has images etc. Nice work! I'm promoting, although suggest looking into the final nitpick above (I'm also happy to take a hack at it if desired as a normal editor.)

By the way, since I see you worked on Tetsuo: The Iron Man in the past, good taste. Maybe consider looking at Hiruko the Goblin for a similar movie from the era by Tsukamoto. ;-) SnowFire (talk) 18:26, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Thanks! Not sure how much cross-over there is between fans of Pitfall! and Tetsuo. So many of his articles have been 2006-stubby for so long, so I should really try and clean some of them up. Thanks for all your work on this! Andrzejbanas (talk) 18:49, 28 October 2023 (UTC)