Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Peer review/Ted Kaczynski/archive1

< Wikipedia:Peer review

Ted Kaczynski

edit
Toolbox
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

I've listed this article for peer review because I plan to take it to FAC and I'd like to see what suggestions folks have on how to improve it.

Thanks, AviationFreak💬 19:38, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

SandyGeorgia

edit

AF, I will review in bits and pieces as I have time. My first concern is considerable confusion wrt MOS:APPENDIX; it's hard to tell what's what.

  • On See also, should those links not mostly be incorporated into a "Legacy" section?
  • On Further reading, should those not be added to his Published works, with that section divided into Mathematical and Other?
  • On External links, because Featured articles are expected to be comprehensive, External links typically is minimal. Can any of those be worked in to the article, and do they really add information that cannot be included? See WP:EL.
  • In the section you call "Sources", it is not clear what those are, as they are not cited in the References section. (If they are supposed to be cited in the References section, there's a problem with how you are using harv referencing.

The next thing I see are several citation formatting problems. Citations must have a consistent format, and include certain information consistently. Some samples:

  • "WashingtonPost.com". Archived from the original on May 4, 2011. Has no title, author, date, or accessdate.
  • "WashingtonPost.com: Unabomber Special Report". Archived from the original on May 4, 2011. Has no author, date, accessdate, and mixes the publisher with the title.
  • This has Los Angeles Times ... Yates, Nona (January 23, 1998). "Recap of the Unabomber Case". Los Angeles Times. ... but this has Boxall, Bettina. "Unabomber Sends New Warnings". latimes. Archived from the original on May 1, 2011. ... Latimes, and no date, and does not include all the authors.

These are samples only; some elbow grease is needed to check and clean up all the citations to a consistent format. Then, there is a different citation formatting issue here:

  • Alston, Chase (June 2000). "Harvard and the Making of the Unabomber". The Atlantic Monthly. 285 (6). pp. 41–63. Archived from the original on August 21, 2014. Retrieved June 15, 2017.

versus

  • Chase, Alston. "Harvard and the Making of the Unabomber". The Atlantic. Archived from the original on August 21, 2014. Retrieved December 23, 2017.
  • Chase, Alston (June 1, 2000). "Harvard and the Making of the Unabomber". The Atlantic Monthly. pp. 41–65. Archived from the original on May 9, 2008. Retrieved October 16, 2008.

Those are all the same source, and there are more. The source should actually be listed once, in Sources, and then use short notes to refer in each citation to that source, and indicate the page number. The article is more than 20 pages long, so you should be indicating page number on each. Have a look at Dementia_with_Lewy_bodies#References for a sample of what I suspect you want, but you aren't there yet. I'll check back in after you've had some time to deal with all of this. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:52, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

SG - Thank you! I believe I've tackled the first group of points, though there are still 5 remaining External Links and the formatting of the "Published works" section is questionable at best (can't seem to figure out Template:refbegin). As far as working on the refs, is there an easier way to edit or at least view refs? At present I would be looking through the 150+ refs, jumping up to their inline citations, editing the citations, publishing, scrolling back down, etc... I'm willing to do this if it's the best way to do it, but I'd like to make sure there aren't any tools you're aware of to help speed up the process before I embark. Thanks! AviationFreak💬 02:34, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, there is ... I have a script installed somewhere that separates out refs from text ... I need to figure out what and where and will get back to you. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:54, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is User:Dr pda/editrefs.js. But I installed it to user:SandyGeorgia/monobook.js more than a decade ago, and I am a techno-dummy, so I won’t be much help on installation. Once you install it at user:AviationFreak/monobook.js it adds a line to the toolbox at the left of your screen that separates out refs when you are in edit mode. Read line 3 there about how to install. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:59, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, I've used that to standardize and update some of the refs. I'll continue working on that. The FA you linked above has a lot of cited literature and therefore has a full "References" section prior to "Works Cited" - I feel like that wouldn't be the case with this article, especially since most books aren't referenced multiple times throughout the article. Would Template:R work better in this case? I don't know what the FA review crew would think of this, but IMO it would look better. Happy to do either one. AviationFreak💬 18:18, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
AviationFreak most editors I know hate the Template:R because it makes such a mess of the article text. You don't have to go all the way as Dementia with Lewy bodies does to have every source in a References section: you can do a partial approach like at Tourette syndrome#References and Tourette syndrome#Book_sources, where you only separately list the books or documents that have multiple pages. Many FAs do that. The reason I had you look at dementia with Lewy bodies is that it shows how to use sfns, but those aren't required either. You can do that, or you can manually write citations in short form as in Tourette syndrome (see for instance, refs 67 and 68 there). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:35, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Elizabeth_Willing_Powel#References is another sample; it uses sfns to link the sources to the short note (which Tourette syndrome does not), while only short notes for those sources that require page nos. You have many options, but I think Template:R is generally the least liked because it's ... ugly and interferes with the text. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:39, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, I think the way the Tourette syndrome article handles the book sources looks elegant. I'll probably work on that tonight, as well as incorporating Gog's suggestions. AviationFreak💬 18:43, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The advantage of the way TS does it is that is the easiest (you just type in the short citation manually, and list the books at the end). The disadvantage is that, if you make any errors, the software won't advise you (as sfns do), and the reader has to make two hops to get to the source, rather than clicking and having the software take you there). Your choice! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:01, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I think I've reworked the book sources to match the way they are on the TS article. Let me know if I need to alter any (or all) of them due to errors. I noticed that a couple of them have no page number, so I will need to go back and add those at some point. I also removed any Google Books links (WP:GBWP), and I would be happy to replace these with Archive.org links assuming the books are in their collection. If I should do this, should the link point to a specific page? AviationFreak💬 21:30, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Different people do it different ways ... I have a query out to Nikkimaria, so let me get back to you. I corrected two straggling sfns. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:51, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
PS, I think you're in decent shape with the citations, but there are still some stragglers. I'll get back to you after speaking with Nikkimaria, but for now you are probably good to move forward with Gog's comments and come back to this nitpickery later :) I know it's a pain in the neck, but getting consistent citations in place up front will save you a lot of time at FAC. Bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:55, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Formatting consistency: in published works, he is listed as Kaczynski, T.J. on some but Kaczynski, Theodore on others (these should be consistent, and ditto for those used as sources ... since you have used full name on most other authors, it seems the T.J. should be switched). Then there are others that have Kaczynski, Ted. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:02, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gog the Mild

edit

I intend to copy edit this and simply make any changes I feel appropriate. Feel free to revert and/or discuss here any which you disagree with or don't understand. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:55, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • It is not usual, although permitted, to put cites in the lead or infobox. SandyGeorgia, what's your view on this? Gog the Mild (talk) 11:33, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is information in the infobox which is not in the article. Eg his prison number.
  • "making "vehement, sweeping, and personally abusive" attacks". The MoS on quotations: "[t]he source must be named in article text if the quotation is an opinion". Emphasis in original.
  • "primarily because of the invasion of his privacy he perceived as a result their experiments." Optional: This is a little clumsy. Maybe rephrase?
  • References: standardise whether books have publisher locations or not.
  • The image "Young theodore kaczynski.jpeg" has two different alt texts.
  • "the psychiatrist and other people whom he hated". This comes a little out of nowhere. Perhaps mention why he hated them?
  • "all but the first few contained the initials "FC" "; "Kaczynski left false clues in every bomb ... The first clue was a metal plate stamped with the initials "FC" ". There seems to be a contradiction here.
  • "Geneticist Phillip Sharp at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology received a threatening letter two years later.". Why is this out of chronological order?
  • "In another letter to The New York Times". "another"? This is the first mention of a letter to the NYT. Also, link The New York Times.
  • "who he wrote in The New Yorker". Who is "he"? Wilson?
  • "FBI Inspector Terry D. Turchie was appointed to run the UNABOM investigation". Is it known when?
  • "a search warrant signed by Terry Turchie"; "finish the search warrant and have it issued by a federal judge in Montana". As a non-American, I am a little confused here.
  • "believed the manifesto had been written by another individual". A specific individual, or just not Kaczynski?
  • "had been the target of the most expensive investigation in FBI history." Is it still?
  • "despite the psychiatric diagnoses". In line attribution needed.
  • Incarceration: IMO the block quote should be paraphrased for falling foul of MOS:QUOTE "While quotations are an indispensable part of Wikipedia, try not to overuse them. Using too many quotes is incompatible with an encyclopedic writing style ... It is generally recommended that content be written in Wikipedia editors' own words. Consider paraphrasing quotations into plain and concise text when appropriate".

It is looking pretty good to me, but some more eyes on it pre-FAC would be good. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:56, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gog and AF: should you prefer, I will ask the lawyer I keep in my back pocket to help me address the search warrant text to make it more digestible to the non-US audience. On the citations in the lead, they are neither required nor discouraged, but some FAC reviewers quibble if they see any citations in the lead. And, sometimes, citations in the lead are suggestive of instability ala POV, which led to extensive lead citations on controversial text. I disagree that we should never have citations in the lead, and believe we should listen to the editors who know the topic best as to when they may be useful and why. For example, in medical articles, I add cites to the lead on hard data/statistics, and anything likely to surprise the reader. My reasoning is that, for medical articles, hard data often changes over time, and I want the reader to be able to click where they encounter the data to see if it is recent. And for anything likely to surprise, I don't want readers who only read the lead to be forced to go looking for something.
So, all that said, I am not seeing any particular reason for the citations that are now in the lead; none of that seems controversial, surprising, or likely to change. But you might have a reason that I am not seeing for wanting them there. Perhaps different than Gog, I do like having the citation to the link with his case number right where I can find it in the infobox, but that could be an artefact of that same lawyer I keep in my back pocket, who has taught me how to search criminal records :) Gog, I am unsure about the external jump to his thesis in the infobox; is that customary or should it be an External link or somewhere else? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:57, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds as if Sandy and I agree re cites in the lead/infobox. Information in the lead or infobox which is not in the main article will not get through FAC unchallenged. Thesis, it is normal - see Jill Biden - and so far as I am aware doesn't breach the MoS. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:35, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Gog, does this help? Instead of "the analysis provided the basis for a search warrant signed by Terry Turchie, the head of the entire investigation", this text should say, "the analysis provided the basis for an affadavit signed by Terry Turchie, the head of the entire investigation, in support of the application for a search warrant" (and the source supports this). The process THEN had to be finished and approved by the federal court. Does that resolve the confusion? If not, I can explain further. The affadavit, or application, for a search warrant has to be issued by the court. What Turchie signed was the affadavit/application for a search warrant-- not the actual search warrant, which has to be approved by a judge. Also, linking search warrant on first occurrence might help; although the article is poorly cited, it is basically correct. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:31, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sandy, I entirely understand that; I have a (arguably bad) habit of asking rhetorical questions and/or posing as a simpleton in reviews. Fish, fishing etc. (Probably acquired during a misspent adulthood.) And I like your proposed text, that would cover things for non-yanks nicely. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:39, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've gone through and done most of these, with a few exceptions:
  • I can't find a source telling why he would have hated his psychiatrist, though I would imagine it was simply due to a lot of tension in his life at that point.
  • I'm not entirely sure who "he" is in the bit about the New Yorker. Looking at the source, it appears the second quote (which is Wilson's) appeared in the Times and not the New Yorker. I can't find the first quote in the source.
  • As far as "another individual," it seems to be a specific individual whose identity is unknown publicly. See point 204 of the source.
  • I think the "Incarceration" block quote is useful, as it is essentially Kaczynski's outlook on the rest of his life.
Let me know if you have any questions or qualms with the changes I've made or not made. AviationFreak💬 23:45, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Sandy asked me to have a look at citations here. Some comments:

  • Most sources are using {{cite}}-family templates, but there's a few in Published works using {{citation}}
  • Some of the sources aren't very reliable - for example Find a Grave, ancestry.com
  • A common problem in using {{cite}} templates is confusion between |publisher= and |work= (and aliases like |website=). Organizations like the FBI are publishers, source titles like Chicago Tribune are works
  • Some citations are incomplete - for example this has a publication date
  • Generally, similar citations should be similarly formatted, and include the same parameters (unless one is unavailable in a specific case). For example, in footnote 112 you have |work=SFGate and no publisher, but then in footnote 157 you have |website=SFGATE and |publisher=SFGATE. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:17, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've gone through and corrected, wikilinked, and disambiguated website/work/publisher fields, as well as other small miscellaneous ref changes. AviationFreak💬 07:05, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hrodvarsson

edit

I'll try to check the article closely this week. Hrodvarsson (talk) 02:18, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Too many quotes have been removed, or at least the paraphrasing that has been substituted is not up to standard. An error has been introduced in the "Mathematics career" section for example. The article now says he "earned five Bs and 12 As in his 17 courses" at Michigan, but the source and the removed quote made clear he failed a physics course.
    • Fixed the grades issue, but I have heard differing opinions on the necessity of including quotes. I was the one that paraphrased them after a suggestion from Gog, and I feel that before they came uncomfortably close to being overused (MOS:QUOTE).
I suspect that Hrodvarsson's issue is with the accuracy and/or adequacy of the paraphrasing. If not, I stand by my interpretation of the MoS. The MoS seems clear. Even as things stand, with over 50 quotes I am not totally persuaded that the article is MoS-compliant and would much rather see th–em thinned further than more added.
Yes, it's the accuracy. Overquotation is much less of a problem than misrepresentation of a source.
  • The Google Books url for at least one (Sperber) of the sources has been removed. These links generally offer previews that can be used to verify the reference so I don't see the benefit of removal. There are other problems with the referencing, including some typos such as "Chase (2203)". I also think the plain-text citations should be converted to templates. It is a needless hassle for the reader to have to click on a reference, then scroll further down to find the corresponding source when we have templates to bypass this. There are only a handful of such references so this would not be a major overhaul of the citation style.
    • This is another thing that was changed during the FAC prep. Georgia suggested that the book citations be changed, and as I understand it this is really a matter of personal preference. I fixed the year in the Chase citation.
Google links - to the precise page cited - are optional. I have found them helpful on occasion as a reviewer or a reader, but rarely use them in my articles.
If Hrodvarsson means change the referencing to harv templates then I would commend that to you. The first thing I do when I start working on an existing article which does not use them is to convert all the referencing to it. However, this is again optional and if you prefer to stay with the current style it is entirely acceptable. If harder work for a reader.
They are optional, but removing them has no benefit. It just makes it harder for the reader to verify material. Same with the reference templates. These are not deal-breakers of course, just suggestions that would improve the article.
  • Some of the bombings mentioned in "Table of bombings" are not mentioned in the article's prose. Giving a brief description of the bombings/attempts would be a useful expansion. On the topic of the table, the green/red backgrounds for the "Explosion" parameter seem out of place, as it gives the bombings the appearance of a sports team's win/loss record.
    • I'll hopefully have some time to work on this tomorrow - I agree that the red/green color scheme is a bit out of place, but I feel like it's useful to have some visually obvious way to navigate the table. Would a different color scheme work better? I just realized this one isn't good for red/green color blindness either.
      • All bombings have been added to prose.
  • The "Life in Montana" section is quite weak. I planned to expand it at one point, but lacked the motivation at the time. The blockquote referencing an epiphany towards violence in 1983, by which point Kaczynski had already perpetrated several bombings, is an interesting quote and should remain, but the chronology is a problem. I think an expansion to the section would smooth this out.
    • The last two paragraphs are really scrawny - What else would go here though?
  • The scope of the newly-created "Legacy" section somewhat overlaps with the second and third paragraphs of the "Influences" section.
    • The last paragraph could certainly be moved. Alternatively, the current "Legacy" section cold be moved up to "Influences" - Do other folks think there should be a separation between the legacy of Kaczynski and the legacy of the manifesto?

Having read a lot about the subject and having written a significant chunk of this article, I generally don't feel the article is FA quality at the moment. I'm aware that's not an actionable critique, so I'll try to be more specific. I've been busier than expected this past week so I haven't reviewed the article and source material as closely as I might have liked. Hrodvarsson (talk) 00:28, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Hrodvarsson: Thanks - Pinging Gog the Mild and SandyGeorgia to see what they think about these points, particularly the first two. AviationFreak💬 02:33, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The first two points responded to in detail above. The discussions on the other actionable comments all seem useful. Personally it still seems at or around FAC quality - not FA quality, I think that it would attract a lot of comment on the detail, but close to ready to nominate. Where I struggle to make a judgement is on whether it "it neglects no major facts or details" and "is a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature": I would bow to Hrodvarsson's superior knowledge on these. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:24, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Responding to ping. Overquoting will be called out as FAC as a problem. If Hrodvarsson objects that something is wrong or something is missing, that should be addressed, but not by adding back in too many quotes.
In our previous correspondence, I didn't preference any one citation style over any other, rather listed several and gave the pros and cons of each. You can move to SFNs, or you can do nothing and leave the citations as they are. Objecting on the format you are currently using would not be a valid oppose at FAC. Each method has its benefits, as I explained in our earlier conversation. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:32, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@AviationFreak: For the "Life in Montana" section, we could mention that Kaczynski's father visited him multiple times in Montana, and that Theodore's suicide was discussed with his family, sans Ted, beforehand. The "Profile of a Loner" piece that is referenced in the article covers this. That piece also mentions that Kaczynski was inspected for the 1990 census; this gives a description of his cabin at the time.

I have other suggestions to expand the article in general, but it would be easier for me to simply make those edits myself than describe them here. I don't want to stall this process or put a deadline on myself to make those edits, so feel free to start the FAC. I will probably make some of those edits in the near future, but I am busier than I was a few years ago and editing Wikipedia has slid quite sharply down my list of priorities so I can't promise I will make them. Hrodvarsson (talk) 23:26, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Hrodvarsson: Sounds good. I'll make those changes to "Life in Montana" sometime tonight or tomorrow. Thank you for your contributions to the article so far, any additions you make in the future will be appreciated. In the meantime, stay safe in WP:REALLIFE. AviationFreak💬 23:43, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Made additions - I'll probably nom at FAC on Friday. AviationFreak💬 21:26, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Peer_review/Ted_Kaczynski/archive1&oldid=1006313159"