[Ed.: many of the criticisms in the following seem to be based on a different understanding than mine of the article's purpose. I followed up with the reviewer and clarified what this section of the book is meant to be about, and the reviewer backed down somewhat on criticisms about the scope of the article. However, I am passing along the original comments because there may still be some points of value.]
<P>
As it stands, this article is not very strong. 
The many limitations of this article--that it offers
little in-depth analysis; that it doesn't take a very
sophisticated view of its subject; that that author
demonstrates little knowledge of IF's history--are
evident by examining a short piece of writing about
2/3 of the way through the article. About arguably the
most famous sentence (and scene description) in all of
IF ("You are standing in an open field west of a white
house...")--all that this author has to say is that
"Trying further to explain its appeal would be
pointless and grasping. There simply isn't much there,
which becomes clear as we walk all the
way around the house, and view equally slim scene
descriptions." What?! What is the purpose of an
article on scene description when the writer has
absolutely nothing to say nor any insight about the
most famous scene description in all of IF, and a
scene description which most devoted IF players can
recite by heart?! This is unacceptable, but
unfortunately it is indicative of the generally poor
quality of this article, which provides little insight
into its stated topic.
<P>
As I finished the article, I was very puzzled by the
author's concluding remark that "As I said at the
beginning: 
Let the player know where he is, and where the exists 
are, and your job is done." If the author really 
believes that this is all that needs to be said about 
scene description, than why bother to write the 
article at all? The author's attitude to his
subject--that it doesn't seem to matter that
much--makes the reader wonder why he has chosen to
write an article on this subject.
<P>
Does the author really believe that "Even
at their best, scene descriptions provide scenery and
atmosphere, and are not interactive in and of
themselves. They are there to be read, but are 
usually not the parts of the game that players find
most remarkable or memorable." Again, one must wonder:
If the author believes these statements--and I would
disagree with this statement 100%--why bother to write
the article at all?
<P>
With these comments in mind, let me turn to some
specific problems with the article.
<P>
First, nowhere does the author outline what makes
scene descriptions either effective or ineffective. 
The author provides some criteria for what should be
componant parts in scene description (serve the story;
strong narrative voice; atmosphere; reinforce the PC's
point of view) but these points are not really
developed in his article and none of them are related
to the larger questions that need to be addressed (as
I list them below).
The author's perspective seems to be that scene
descriptions don't really matter that much so perhaps
he doesn't feel the need to establish such criteria.
This perspective is questionable in an article on this
subject.
<P>
Nowhere does the author give a reason for equating
scene descriptions with mapmaking--and if he does
equate the two, again the reader must wonder: why
bother writing this article? Nowhere does the author
identify elements of scene description or discuss the
relationship of scene description to narrative. 
Nowhere does the author address issues of scene 
description that relate IF to hyptertexts or 
traditional fiction; nowhere does the author discuss 
the relationship of scene description to 
interactivity; to player motivation; etc. In short, 
the topic of this piece is a huge one, and this 
article comes nowhere close to addressing it 
comprehensively or deeply. 
<P>
My first recommendation to the author is that he take 
time to read the numerous excellent articles that have
already been written about the subject of narrative 
and IF. While technically scene description may be 
considered a subset of the subject of narrative--and 
therefore a different, though related, topic--the 
author absolutely MUST address the myriad issues 
raised by the role of narrative in IF in his piece. To
write the piece in a vacuum, as is the case here, does
not serve much of a purpose. If the author is going to
treat scene description as something completely
separate from narrative, then he must state this
position explicitly and explain it to the reader.
<P>
[Ed. note: Considering that this is a craft section piece, I am not sure that a detailed overview of narrative theory is so critical as the reviewer argues.]
<P>
Second, the author must clearly outline the criteria 
for successful scene description. The article as it 
stands makes many references to "acceptable" or 
"unacceptable" descriptions or the "right elements" or
"faults" yet nowhere does the author clearly state 
criteria. Again (please refer to my earlier
discussion), this article MUST be written within the
larger context of IF, and this includes the relation
of IF to hyptertext; to literary genres such as
mystery and science fiction, from which IF often
borrows, etc.  The notion of scene description makes
no sense whatsoever if it is not linked to a larger
sense of how IF is related to narrative as a whole. I
am not suggesting that the author provide an overview
of what everyone else has written about narrative, but
the article must make reference to the myriad of
larger issues about narrative and description that
have been raised by others. Scene description cannot
simply be assumed to be something different and
separate from narrative (not at least without some
extended defense of this position).
<P>
Points to consider when discussing the criteria for 
scene description: 
--how does scene description relate to the various 
aspects of IF as defined by Nelson (prologue; middle 
game; endgame)?
--how does scene description effect player's 
involvement and motivation? 
--how does scene description relate to interactivity 
and interactive exposition? Here, specifically, the 
author might consider how scene description can effect
<P>
Laurel's 3 levels of interactivity) 
--if, as many have argued, game elements in IF come 
from problem solving, what is the relationship of 
scene description to the core of IF? (or, put another 
way, how does scene description in IF contribute to
the storyline?) 
--what is the relationship of scene description to 
literary description? Is the comparison even fair? 
--how does scene description contribute to a 
co-authorship with the player of the game? 
The answers to these questions--or at least some 
considered discussion of them--will yeild the 
beginnings of some criteria for scene description that
this article is missing. 
<P>
Once these issues and criteria have been outlined, the
author can then add into the discussion examples from 
IF that either demonstrate or do not demonstrate the 
points he is making.