Talk:Stamper brothers/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Indrian (talk · contribs) 22:55, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

bygones

I appreciate your efforts to improve the article on one of the most infamously reclusive duos in video game history, but as the article stands it is not even close to comprehensive, lacking even basic vital statistics about the subjects. I am well aware some of this material does not exist in reliable sources at this time, but I don't see how we can promote this article in good conscience absent better biographical information on the subjects. As such, I am going to quick fail this nomination on the grounds that it is a long way from fulfilling the "broad in coverage" criteria for good articles. While this is a lesser standard than the comprehensiveness requirement of FA, the lack of any information on their early lives, the lack of coverage of their personal contributions to the industry outside of founding certain influential companies, and the frequent conflation of company history with personal history feel like significant issues that may be difficult -- if not impossible -- to correct through currently available sources. With luck, the Stampers and their closest confidants will one day end their silence, and we can give them the biography they deserve. Indrian (talk) 22:55, 30 July 2017 (UTC) @Indrian, with respect, nowhere is article completeness defined by what should exist in reliable sources but what does (see Wikipedia:What the Good article criteria are not#breadth, esp. 2nd bullet), and I would think that you know me well enough to not have nominated this if I didn't expect to receive a full review against the GA criteria. czar 02:16, 31 July 2017 (UTC) I should have used the term commonly available reliable sources in the first paragraph above, as I do not believe that an exhaustive search of sources has been conducted. My guess is the local paper would at the very least have birth announcements. Coin Slot, the trade publication of the British Coin-op industry, would undoubtedly have info on Zilec and perhaps on the Stampers. Just because the popular gaming mags of the day failed to score interviews does not mean this info does not exist. If this were an 12th century duke, major gaps would be acceptable, as the scholarship would be fairly settled, but these are living people for whom at the very least vital records exist. This is no disrespect to your work on the article, but I remain unsatisfied that breath of coverage has been satisfied. It is your right to seek a second opinion, and I think there is a decent chance you would be successful; it's just that to me this feels more like a summary of Ultimate and Rare than a biographical article. I do not believe I have failed an article outright before, so I don't do this out of habit; I felt strongly about this one. I still appreciate your hard work on the article. Indrian (talk) 04:43, 31 July 2017 (UTC) You're talking about archival sources. There's no reason to believe that their local papers would have necessarily announced their birth(?) or that Coin Slot, which is held by less than a handful of libraries in the world, would have any than trivia (if even that) on the Stampers. You're welcome to feel strongly, but it would have been more appropriate to have expressed it through other means than a quickfail, because you need more evidence behind your claims of greater breadth in sources if you're going to call it a review. czar 15:23, 31 July 2017 (UTC) Birth announcements are common in newspapers of the era and trade publication often profile the histories of individuals or companies. Not sure why you are attempting to trivialize these "archival" sources, which are actually not archival because they have been published. The magazines you cite to in the article are also "archival" sources by your expanded definition of the term, just easier for us to find and check. You have cited only one monograph, and there are only a couple of additional monographs out there that discuss Ultimate and/or Rare. Nothing book-wise discusses the Stampers in any greater depth. They quite frankly nearly fail Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Now we both know they are not only notable, but also hugely influential, but that's just how the sourcing breaks. If the company info were removed, there would not be enough material on their backgrounds, influences, and personal contributions to their businesses to sustain a sizable article. That is a breadth of coverage issue. If reliable sources don't provide enough info on the individuals themselves to form an article much larger than a stub, then that is a notability issue (as silly as we both know that sounds in this case). Either way, there is not enough article there for a GA in my opinion, which could well differ from someone else's. Check out Kellee Santiago for a GA video game bio that is short (and even missing some vital statistics) but still manages to feel like a biography rather than merely a company history. Again, I appreciate the work you have done on the article, it's just a difficult subject. Indrian (talk) 22:58, 31 July 2017 (UTC) It's off-topic, but non-current periodicals that are held in less than a handful of libraries (archives/special collections) worldwide and not available online are uncontroversially archival sources. The difference being what can be proven to exist for use and what is inaccessible behind glass or oceans. If you have unused monographs on the Stampers, now is the time to produce them... (Since you briefly participated in the peer review, I know you know why I felt this was source complete, which too is a status far above the very low bar of the GA criteria.) I understand your breadth point, so it doesn't need repeating, but the GA criteria do not fault an article's completeness for sources that do not and may never exist. That's why there cannot be a breadth issue over immaterial sources. Indeed, I've put far more time into this than the GA criteria demands. It's 9k of tight prose, close to FA quality, and pertains specifically to the role of figureheads in the company, not a straight company history itself. I don't see how notability would even be in question, and I don't see why you took the review if you weren't planning to review it. czar 21:02, 1 August 2017 (UTC) I did review it and found it extremely wanting on one specific criteria. I'm sorry that hurt your feelings, but I never claimed what was present was not well-written, so your straw man above is puzzling. I have no doubt you will be able to find someone that believes I am a completely looney for taking the position I did and will be able to get it passed in short order to soothe your bruised ego. One thing though: this article has a case for GA status, it is nowhere near FA status and I am shocked an experienced editor like you would consider it so. The comprehensiveness criteria is far more exacting than "breadth of coverage" and the well-researched criteria would require you to track down any harder to find sources. I think you are getting a little too close to your work here. Indrian (talk) 21:41, 1 August 2017 (UTC) No need to make it personal. Heed your own advice. czar 21:55, 1 August 2017 (UTC) I have taken nothing here personally, but you seem to have done as we merely have a difference of opinion of policy and you are turning that into me somehow not reviewing the article. Also, you have quibbled over archival sources while still apparently not understanding what they are. Wikipedia's own Archive article should help with that. Just because you can only presently easily find a source within a handful of libraries does not make a source archival; it just makes them rare. If it was a widely printed and circulated published source in its day, it does not fit that definition. Indrian (talk) 21:59, 1 August 2017 (UTC) I do see your point though after looking over a few more GA biographies. I still feel pretty strongly, but I can admit I am a bit out of step with consensus here. Tell you what, why don't we let bygones be bygones and I will give it a full review based on currently available sources with the aim of passing after any minor concerns are met. Indrian (talk) 22:26, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Reinstated Review

It might take me a couple days to get back to this, but let's get this article promoted. Indrian (talk) 13:37, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Okay, let's get this started.

Lead

• Looking at other biographical articles of video game personalities, I notice that they are first defined by their profession or training and only then defined by the companies they formed. It strikes me a little odd therefore, that the first sentence of this article goes straight to Ultimate ad Rare. Perhaps something like "The Stamper brothers—Chris and Tim Stamper— are a programmer and an artist who found the British video game companies Ultimate Play the Game and Rare." That's not necessarily perfect, but you get the idea. Also, and I know this is really nitpicking, it makes more sense to list Chris first rather than Tim as I did above since he is not only the older sibling, but also the prime mover in getting the brothers into the video game business.

I considered this, but the sources more often named Tim first. I imagine it was primarily because Tim was the more public half of the duo (and secondarily because it's the more mellifluous choice). The order makes the introduction slightly more annoying, but I think it's the better option for adhering to the source precedent. As for their roles, they're explained in the third sentence, which I think should be sufficient. They're best known for their roles as "founders", hence its prominence in the first sentence. Their roles as programmer/designer are secondary, as follows by their placement. ♔

That's fine, I looked a little further and having a profession first is far from universal, so the placement makes sense. I don't really agree on the naming order, but I also don't care all that much; certainly not going to fight about it or threaten to fail the article over it. Indrian (talk) 16:02, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

• "They enjoyed a Beatles-scale fandom in the 1980s" I understand the analogy Business Week was drawing here about relative popularity in their given fields, but that is different from stating they actually had a Beatles-scale fandom in truth. Not even Shigeru Miyamoto has a Beatles-scale fandom; that's a whole other scale of popularity.

Ultimate

• I have one more source for you to add just a little more meat to the article. Popular Computing Weekly did a profile on Ultimate in August 1983 that includes a rare Stamper interview that explains why the brothers transitioned out of the coin-op field and into home computers. Its not much, but it will smooth out the article a little bit.

I had addressed this source at Talk:Stamper_brothers#Maher_sources—it does have a few more technical elements, but I think the transition is already sufficiently explained as having switched to the more profitable market (the details are more company history than personal bio) ♔

See, I think that misstates things a little. They moved on because they did not feel a small company could compete in the arcade market anymore due to the adoption of more expensive technology. I would express it that way myself. Indrian (talk) 16:02, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

That's how that one source put it, but the other sources just say that Ultimate thought Speccy dev would be more lucrative, not necessarily that they were edged out by arcade tech. So I don't want to inappropriately bound the transition (same as why I didn't go into the decline of the Spectrum market in the founding of Rare) as anyone interested in the company history has the dedicated articles ♔

• "The brothers each had a strong sense of what made a game good" - That's a solid sentiment, but clumsily written. I think we can do better than "made a game good."
• "but their Howard Hughes-style reclusiveness was the subject of derision from other UK developers who otherwise greatly respected their work." - As with the Beatles thing, this is a little over the top. Until we find the Stampers' secret stash of urine jars, we are not really approaching Howard Hughes on the eccentric recluse scale. They just refused to grant interviews. The overall sentiment is fine, just lose the Howard Hughes reference.

They made their career on their reclusiveness, more so than possibly anyone else in the industry, and I think the source's comparison with HH is apt. A comparison doesn't imply that the brothers were HH, but that they were known for their reclusiveness akin to HH. ♔

HH avoided everybody; the Stampers just avoided the press. Its really completely different. I do see you removed it though, which I appreciate. Indrian (talk) 16:02, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

• "As Nintendo transitioned to the Super Nintendo Entertainment System in the early 1990s, Rare invested in Silicon Graphics computers and prototyped full computer-generated imagery rendering." I may be wrong, but I believe the company invested in Silicon Graphics computers because they were going to work on games for the N64, the hardware of which was built by Silicon Graphics. The DKC development was a happy accident of this investment.

The timeline sounds right, but I don't have a source that connects the dots. [1] implies that the SGI workstation was for N64 development and Kent (p. 461) writes about how the SGI pre-rendered SNES demo was done overnight at request from a visiting Nintendo engineer, but no one goes so far as to say that the SGI workstation was never for SNES development, as who knows what Rare had in mind. (This is also to say that the point pertains more to the company's history than the brothers'.) For what it's worth, the other sources[2][3][4][5] don't retrofit N64 considerations into Rare's motivation and (justly) say that SGI made powerful computers that Rare would have wanted anyway. ♔

That's all fine and good, and I don't disagree, but I think we should remove "As Nintendo transitioned to the Super Nintendo Entertainment System" from the opening sentence just to stay in line with the sources. Phrasing that way implies they were purchased for SNES development, and we cannot really say one way or the other from available sources. Indrian (talk) 16:02, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

I've removed "as" to make it less inferential, but the source supports the time period and the signposting helps the reader anticipate the paragraph ♔

I decided to be bold and alter this myself. By highlighting the move to the SNES in the introductory clause of the topic sentence of the paragraph, the article is forging an explicit link between the launch of the SNES and Rare's purchase of the workstations. While this link may exist, the sources are unclear, and we should therefore tread carefully. Providing the time frame still gives context to the paragraph. Indrian (talk) 14:16, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Rare

• "Chris Stamper continued to code for the company through the mid-90s, also when he became engaged." The last part of the sentence needs to be rewritten. I assume this means he was engaged to be married? If so, that should be explicit.
  • I think this is still awkward, coming as a bit of a non sequitur. Also, if we are only able to say he became engaged without being able to follow up with info on his marriage, leaving this in just begs the question of what happened next. I am taking it out for now, but feel free to put it back if you can think of a way to integrate the info a little better. Indrian (talk) 14:55, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

And that's it to start. I will probably have a few more comments after these initial concerns are met. We're getting close though, so I will place the article  On hold while these issues are addressed. Indrian (talk) 15:45, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the review! I've addressed the above czar 16:07, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

@Czar:Looking good. I have added comments to a few of your comments. We are very close Indrian (talk) 16:02, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

• @Indrian, courtesy ping czar 15:51, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

@Czar:I made a few more edits to the article to clean up some grammar and remove some questionable material from a couple of the more confused sources, and I think we are pretty much done. Before I promote though, I want to see if you can think of any images to add to the article. The GA criteria prefers having something in this area, though its not a strict requirement if its really not possible. Indrian (talk) 15:01, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

The only relevant images I can even recall are the ones from the 1988 Games Machine interview, sometimes reprinted elsewhere. I don't know whom to contact about getting those images released under a free license: i.e., where to find photographer "Cameron Pound", if Games Machine doesn't hold the copyright itself, in which case, who owns Game Machine's intellectual property to make that release? Britain also has an unusually high threshold of originality for logos, so that's a no go too. I had thought about it, and didn't find other significant media by a third party to use as illustration. czar 16:08, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

That's fine. I'll go ahead and promote then. Well done! Indrian (talk) 16:49, 17 August 2017 (UTC)