Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Ted Bundy/archive1

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 not promoted by Karanacs 19:03, 27 July 2011 [1].

---

Ted Bundy

Ted Bundy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• Featured article candidates/Ted Bundy/archive1

Nominator(s): Doc talk 07:15, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

The GA reviewer felt it was "close to FA standards" and offered many suggestions for improvement, the majority of which have been addressed. With over 275 solid inline citations (and growing) and consistent ranking in the top 1000 most trafficked articles, this article meets FA standards and is watched and improved by a dedicated group of editors who want the article to be authoritative. Looking forward to any suggested improvements that would help make the article one of WP's best. Doc talk 07:15, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:01, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

• Are all the citations in the lead necessary? Per WP:LEAD, most of it (except direct quotes) should be cited in article text
• "However, when he applied for a job at a construction site the personnel officer asked for identification. He made excuses and departed. This was his only attempt at job hunting; he reverted to his old habits of shoplifting and purse snatching." - source?
• FN 1, 51: publisher?
• FN 12, 203, 236 and others: formatting
• FN 148, 194: page(s)?
• Missing bibliographic info for Michaud & Aynesworth 1990
• No citations to Dekle 2011
• FN 13 and others: should use pp. for multiple and p. for single pages. Also, page ranges should always use endashes, not hyphens
• Watch for minor inconsistencies in formatting like doubled periods
• What makes this a high-quality reliable source? This? This? This? This?
• Be consistent in whether you include website name as work in web refs
• This link returns "page not found"
• Retrieval dates aren't required for convenience links to print-based sources (like Google Books)
• Where is Newbury Park? Simon & Schuster?
• Be consistent in whether editions are capitalized. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:01, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Newbury Park is a location; Sage is the publisher. I have added a location for Simon and Schuster and got started on some of the other items. How are we to format references to Kindle editions? They are not page numbers in the usual sense. --Diannaa (talk) 14:39, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

I figured that it was a location, I wondered where it was - UK, US? If US, which state? I don't have a Kindle myself, but my understanding is that it has something called "location numbers" which can be used instead of page numbers. Failing that, your options are: find a PDF or hardcopy version with pagination or cite by chapter(+section)+paragraph. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:22, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Newbury Park is in California; I will add the state. The location in the Kindle work has already been added to the sfn citations, for example {{sfn|Keppel|2010|loc=7135}}. But the template does not transfer all of the the info to the article in a visible way; it is transferring the number but not the fact that it is a location. Before Jack added the sfn templates the Kindle cites showed as "Keppel, Kindle location 7135", for example. How would you like this handled? Do we have to remove the Kindle sources from the templates? --Ninja Diannaa (Talk) 18:13, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

According to Template:Sfn#Usage, you can simply add the location type to the parameter so it displays - the example they give is loc=chpt. 3, but you can probably do something similar here. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:37, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, you are right. I have introduced this improvement. --Diannaa (talk) 22:34, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Cite 51 has been replaced with a better source. --Diannaa (talk) 21:25, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Cite 194 should not need a page number, as it merely sources that the book exists. I think all the other matters on your list have been dealt with now; if you have a chance to double check that would be awesome. --Diannaa (talk) 20:04, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Leaning to support: This is impressive work. I have a few issues with the prose, as listed below; when these are settled and any source and image issues resolved, I will be pleased to switch to full support.

• In the lead we have close repetition: "usually ... usually"
• Is there a slightly more formal word than "spree" to describe his bouts of killing?
• "a work-study job" is confusing. I believe this is referring to a part-time job while studying, but in Britain "work-study" is a profession. It means examining ways of doing work in order to achieve greater efficiency; I'm sure this isn't what Bundy was doing
  • The American usage is, as you say, a part-time job while studying. Vidor (talk) 06:39, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
• "There is some evidence that he killed a young girl in Tacoma in 1961..." Who has this evidence, and broadly, what is its nature?
• Awkward phrasing, esp. the terminal apostrophe: "Also found were an extra femur and several vertebrae, later identified by Bundy as Georgeann Hawkins'". Suggest "later identified by Bundy as belonging to..."
• link "mandibles"(first mention)
• "On September 2 Bundy picked up a hitchhiker in Idaho whom he raped and strangled; her identity remains unknown and no body was found." So we only have his word that this happened? This should be made clear
  • This point has not been addressed. Brianboulton (talk) 11:18, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
    • I Thought I addressed this by re-wording to "One of these was a hitchhiker Bundy picked up in Idaho on September 2, 1974, whom he raped and strangled; her identity remains unknown and no body was found". Does this need more work? --Diannaa (talk) 20:17, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
      • The point I was trying to make was that if the victim in unidentified, and no body was found, we only have Bundy's word that the attack to place, and the text needs to be worded to reflect this. Brianboulton (talk) 19:17, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
        • I thought this could be gathered from the context. Do you have a suggested wording? I am drawign a blank here. --Diannaa (talk) 04:55, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
          • Bundy's "word" on this is backed by reliable sources. I personally find it implausible that after so many years of denying murders that law enforcement knew for certain he committed that he would, at the eleventh hour, completely falsify other murders. He was no Henry Lee Lucas. While he was certainly a pathological liar, it is still unlikely that he was lying about this unfortunate unknown girl's fate. Doc talk 03:51, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
• Some confusion about who owned the "light brown" Volkswagen. I understood it to be Bundy's, but then read: "He kept a lug wrench, taped halfway up the handle, in the trunk of her car (a tan Volkwagen Beetle, which he often borrowed)" - "her" being Kloepfer. Then in the next paragraph: "On September 2 Bundy sold his Volkswagen Beetle to a Midvale teenager." Did both Bundy and Kloepfer own similarly-coloured Volkswagens?
  • They did, in fact. It was a very common car in the United States. Vidor (talk) 06:39, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
    • This point needs more clarification in the text. Brianboulton (talk) 11:18, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
      • I have added a clarification. --Diannaa (talk) 20:51, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
• "Florida trials, marriage" section: This begins "A year later..." A date should be given as this is a new section, particularly as the second paragraph begins "Six months later..."
• "(This third death sentence would be the one actually carried out, more than nine years later.) Uncited parenthetical aside.
  • I'd drop the unnecessary parentheses. Brianboulton (talk) 11:18, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
• Odd wording: "...but Gary Leon Ridgway was captured 17 years later without Bundy's help." I'd say a better sense would be: "...but Gary Leon Ridgway remained at large for a further 17years before his capture." It can be taken as read that this capture was without Bundy's help!
• I believe "firefighter" is a single word.
• What is a "Goodwill container"?
• "Bundy told Michaud and Aynsworth in 1980, and Hagmaier just the previous night, that pornography played a negligible role in his development as a serial killer." This needs to start "Bundy had told", and "just the previous night" is a little imprecise.
• You need to be consistent about who Michaud and Aynsworth are. They are first introduced as "biographers", but in the "Death row, confession etc" section they are reintroduced as "criminal justice writer Stephen G. Michaud and reporter Hugh Aynesworth" Brianboulton (talk) 11:18, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Brianboulton (talk) 17:45, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

I have dealt with these last four items (the parenthetical aside, the Goodwill container, re-wording the "just the previous night", and making the description of Michaud and Aynsworth more uniform). Let me know if more work is required on any of these sections please. --Diannaa (talk) 20:17, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Images: There are a few problems.

• The licensing of File:Ted Bundy headshot.jpg is all over the place. It seems to have just been decided that it's CC- the use of Commons:Template:Image from the Florida Photographic Collection is very odd.
  • What's odd about it? That image and every other image so tagged in the article are in fact images from the Florida Photographic Collection. Vidor (talk) 06:20, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
    • Please provide evidence that, one, the Florida Photographic Collection has the right to release images in the collection under whatever license it wants, and, two, that they've chosen to release them under that specific Creative Commons license. The reason it is odd is because the template basically says "right- these images are sort of free. Creative Commons is sort of free. So, I reckon these images are Creative Commons." That's not a good way to go about marking free content. J Milburn (talk) 09:53, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
• I'm really not sure about File:Caryn Campbell Ted Bundy victim.jpg. It's been used to illustrate the "typical victim", but I wonder whether that could just be described. At the very least, we would need the photographer/copyright holder, and this would need a massive reduction in size.
• File:Ted Bundy murder kit.JPG- There's nothing particularly surprising there, the kit could be just listed. What it looked like is hardly significant. If he was using an ornate ceremonial dagger or something...
• File:Ted-bundy.jpg- There's not even a proper rationale there. What that mugshot looked like is not important; we have free images of him.
• File:FBI-360-Ted Bundy FBI 10 most wanted photo.jpg I doubt that was created by the FBI. I know that a lot of their "most wanted" pics weren't- we'd really need some evidence as to who created it.
• File:TedBundyprisonFlorida.jpg- Again, very dubious about the whole "Florida archive" thing. The licensing really needs to be confirmed- if they belong to the state of Florida, then they are probably all licensed in the same way. If they're just archived by Florida, then any claim of them being "released" may be baseless anyway.
• File:LevyBowmanBundyvictims.jpg- Again. This looks like a very good case for the pics not belonging to Florida- the left looks like a family photo, the right a professional studio shot.
• File:TedBundyincustody.JPG- Again.
• File:Dental evidence ted bundy.jpeg- Again.
• File:Ted Bundy mug shot.jpg- Clearly PD, but still uses that weird "I reckon it's CC" template.
• File:Ted Bundy in court.jpg- Again.
• File:Ted Bundy 3.jpg- I mention this because this, though hardly a standard usage of a non-free image, looks potentially legitimate. However, it'd be helpful to know who owns the copyright/who created the image- I suspect the documentary took the picture from elsewhere. A cleanup on that page would be very helpful. J Milburn (talk) 16:49, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Could you please point me at any free images of Bundy that we have? I am not seeing any. File:Ted Bundy 3.jpg is labelled in this recent article as being Getty Images, unfortunately. We will need a minimum of one Bundy pic for the info box. Many of these pics appear in Nelson and Rule so I will go get the books from the library and find out who took the pics. --Diannaa (talk) 19:41, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

File:Ted Bundy mug shot.jpg has what sounds like a legitimate claim of PD status, but I am not an expert. J Milburn (talk) 19:58, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Also, if the non-free image of him shouting in court is from Getty Images, it almost certainly fails non-free content criterion 2, and should be deleted ASAP under CSD F7- "Non-free images or media from a commercial source (e.g., Associated Press, Getty), where the file itself is not the subject of sourced commentary, are considered an invalid claim of fair use and fail the strict requirements of WP:NFCC; and may be deleted immediately.". J Milburn (talk) 20:00, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

The files from the State of Florida collection appear to me to be ok to use as long as appropriate credit is given: their disclaimer. Can you please clarify why you think they might not be acceptable? The "FBI Most Wanted" picture appears on the FBI website, but who was the original photographer? unknown. It was possibly a photo that was taken by a govt employee whilst surveilling Bundy, but we have no way of knowing. My car won't start so I will not be going to the library till Monday. --Diannaa (talk) 21:12, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Two issues with the Florida pictures- Firstly, who created them? How do we know Florida has the right to license them as they wish? Secondly, even if they are legit as long as credit is given, that does not mean that we can assume they're released under a Creative Commons license. What it appears has happened is that someone has said "that license sounds kind of like a CC one" and so they've just assumed that the images are CC. J Milburn (talk) 00:05, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. That makes sense. Most of these pics are in the two books I mentioned, and there will be photo credits, but I am not going to walk over there just to get the books (I can't get my car fixed until Tuesday). I will pick them up on Monday when I go to work. Some of the other info that needs cites is in these two books as well; if no one else clears up the remaining points over the weekend, I will fill in those blanks early next week. --Diannaa (talk) 00:53, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

The Florida Memory Archives are maintained by the State of Florida - this is not a private enterprise claiming the ability to use their images free of charge. It's a U.S. state government that says it's okay (and, of course, where the WMF is located and whose laws they are subject to). Any site can use these images free of charge as long as they credit the Florida Memory Project and have obtained their permission. This is what I understand to be the case, but I could certainly be very wrong. Doc talk 04:59, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

My question is, on what authority do they claim to own the pictures? Were they all taken by Florida state employees? I have a sneaking suspicion that this is an archive of images from all over the place that the office is just assuming are out of copyright, and so distributing as their own. Take, for instances, File:LevyBowmanBundyvictims.jpg. This is a photograph of two photographs, and I doubt either of the original photographs were taken by employees of the state of Florida. J Milburn (talk) 10:24, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the problem is with the Florida Memory Project. The category at Wikimedia Commons, as linked at the beginning of this section, makes clear that the images in the Project are not subject to copyright. The state of Florida has said this directly and explicitly. Vidor (talk) 06:25, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Alright, I'll say it again. "Not subject to copyright" is not the same thing as "released under this very specific Creative Commons license", and what the archive says is not actually that important if they did not own the rights to the picture in the first place. Who created them? Why does the archive have the right dictate how they are licensed? J Milburn (talk) 09:45, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree that the florida archives CC template looks totally bogus. I had planned to nominate the en.wiki equivalent for deletion. At a page on their website,[2] they say that some photos may be copyrighted. A different page says, "The Florida Photographic Collection is comprised of numerous photographic formats, from daguerreotypes to digital images, and includes everything from amateur family photographs to portraits by the top professionals in the business." Clearly these photos were not created by the florida government, and there is nothing in the website that says the copyrights were donated to the archive, so there is no reason to think that whoever sent that email in 2008 had any idea what the rights status of these images are. Calliopejen1 (talk) 22:26, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

I left numerous WP:MOS sample edits-- pls see my edit summaries. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:49, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Could you please provide the exact text from citation no. 237, Michaud & Aynesworth 1999, p. 13? Does that need attribution to the author?

Rather, the classic criteria for one or more personality disorders were clearly identifiable in Bundy.[237][238] Unlike psychotics, such people can distinguish right from wrong, but that ability has minimal effect on their behavior.[239] They are devoid of feelings of guilt or remorse,[238]

I am concerned that the subsequent sentences, citing WHO diagnostic criteria (citation no. 238, which has nothing to do with Bundy), might be synthesis unless we have strong statements to the effect directly relating to Bundy, and concerned that if we only have one source and speculative differing diagnoses, we might want to attribute those statements. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:19, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

• What is the story on Vidor (talk · contribs) and was s/he consulted on this nomination? How much of the text was written by him/her? Same for DoctorJoeE (talk · contribs)-- were other significant contributors notified, and should any of them be co-noms? A WP:V check for accurate representation of sources and close paraphrasing will be needed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:23, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

• • What is the "story"--I do not understand this question. I am me. What do you want to know? Vidor (talk) 06:19, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
  • As for how much of the text was written by me, the answer is a fairly large amount. Vidor (talk) 06:31, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

• What is meant by "Bundy was superficially handsome ... "? From what source does the "superfically" come and what is their exact wording? If large quantities of alcohol and drunkenness were part of his MO, how was he able to cover his tracks and "minimize physical evidence" so well if drunk? "Consumption of large quantities of alcohol was an "essential component", he told Keppel, and later Michaud; he needed to be "extremely drunk" while on the prowl ... " SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:15, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Here is the the exact text from citation no. 237, Michaud & Aynesworth 1999, p. 13:

Once the assumption of guilt was made, nearly all the classic criteria of Antisocial Personality Disorder were identified and duly noted in him; violence, disregard for truth and social norms, theiving, impulsivity, inablility to feel guilt or remorse and all the rest." Michaud and Answorth, page 13

There is extensive discussion of Lewis's diagnosis of bipolar disorder in Nelson, as mentioned in the opening sentence of the first paragraph. There is something about it in Michaud and Answorth, on page 332. Footnotes 238 and 239 contain information from books not directly about Bundy. Do you want this information to be removed?

Vidor was a primary contributor to the original article but has not edited it since April. Re-writes were undertaken by DoctorJoeE (talk · contribs) beginning in March 2011. So the primary authors of the article in its current form are DoctorJoeE, Doc9871, and myself. I became interested in the article at the end of April and have since read Rule and Nelson, and parts of Michaud and Ainsworth (Only Living Witness), which is available through Google Book previews. I have not seen any plagiarism or close paraphrasing.

The statement that Bundy was "superficially handsome, charming and charismatic" has three different citations, all of which are available online (cites #212, 213, 214). The only one that uses the word "superficial" is Michaud and Ainsworth. I think what is meant is that on the surface he seemed like a nice appealing person but that it was an act. I cannot speculate on how Bundy was able to cover his tracks so well whilst drunk, since the sources do not cover this point.

I am going to get started on some of your suggested edits and will report back here when done. --Diannaa (talk) 15:40, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

I have now checked and corrected over-linking, redirects, acronyms, page numbers in citations, ellipses, and non-breaking spaces in times of day. I think this is everything you talked about in your edit summaries. Please let me know if anything was missed or done incorrectly. Thanks. --Diannaa (talk) 17:57, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

As to how Bundy was able to cover his tracks while drunk--well, he was. There are of course gradations in drunkenness, and one may feel the euphoria of alcohol without being severely impaired. Bundy specifically stated both in his third person "speculations" to Stephen Michaud and his last-minute 1989 confessions that he drank before seeking out a victim, and Carol DaRonch, the only person ever to escape from his Volkswagen, testified to smelling alcohol on his breath. Vidor (talk) 06:39, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Support for A-Class but not FA, plus some comments on the lede

1. "Theodore Robert "Ted" Bundy " -- could we drop the "Ted" here, this insertion is normally used for a nickname or other alias rather than a simple contraction of one's Christian name.

2. "was an American serial killer, rapist, kidnapper, and necrophile who assaulted and murdered at least 30 young women, and possibly many more, in many U.S. states between 1974 and 1978. " --far too long for an opening sentence. I suggest "was an American serial killer". Then detail the extent of his crimes: "he was convicted of X number of murders and suspected to have killed and sexually assaulted at least 30 young women." There shouldn't be so much vagueness either.

3. "He traveled alone extensively, and long stretches of his time remain unaccounted for; anecdotal evidence suggests that he began killing well before 1974." -- Bundy travelled alone extensively throughout the United States and long periods of his biography remain unaccounted for, leading XX to suppose that he began his crimes before 1974."

4. "Bundy was superficially handsome, charming, and charismatic, and used these qualities to full advantage. All of his known victims were attractive young women and girls who often had long, straight hair, parted in the middle. He usually approached them in public places and gained their trust by feigning injuries or disabilities, or by impersonating an authority figure."

--"Bundy was handsome and charismatic, traits he exploited in winning the confidence of his younger, attractive, female victims. He typically approached them in public places and feigned injury or disability, or impersonated an authority figure, before overpowering them and assaulting them at a more secluded location."

5. "He sometimes revisited his secondary crime scenes for hours at a time, grooming and performing sexual acts with the corpses, until they reached an advanced state of decomposition. He decapitated a number of victims and kept the severed heads in his apartment as mementos of his crimes. On a few occasions he simply broke into dwellings in the dead of night and bludgeoned victims as they slept."

Sometimes he revisited the scenes of his crimes, where he groomed and preformed sexual acts on the corpses [how advanced? was it sometimes or always? the "until" indicates it was always, i.e. until they were black, etc.] He decapitated a number of victims and kept the severed heads in his apartment as mementos of his crimes. On a few occasions he simply broke into dwellings in the dead of night and bludgeoned victims as they slept."

Overall, the article seems well researched and essentially complete, but with too many outstanding style issues for FA class. I reccomend an award of A-Class. Congratulations on all the work so far. Best, --Ktlynch (talk) 12:12, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Interviewers had trouble getting Bundy to talk about specific things he did whilst committing the crimes or about the way he violated the corpses. More specific details about the exact state of decomposition and which corpses he did what to will not be forthcoming as Bundy did not provide that information. He had trouble talking about the crimes at all and typically spoke in the third person while doing so, and only began to talk about the crimes at all at the very end, when he thought that to do so could save his own life. I don't agree with dropping the "Ted" from the opening sentence as that is the name he is most commonly known by; also, the fact that "Ted" is short for "Theodore" will not be common knowledge in countries like India. The other edits are good and I will insert them tomorrow if no one else does it first. --Diannaa (talk) 04:42, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

I have worked in your suggested edits. If you could give more specific feedback as to what further style issues need addressing, it would be greatly appreciated. Thanks. --Diannaa (talk) 20:32, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

On #5 - I changed "decomposition" to "putrefaction". This should clarify it completely, as the article cites that he ceased his ghoulish activities when putrefaction "forced him to stop". Doc talk 04:45, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

After reading the whole article in detail I see the point about not knowing the exact details, I think in one place it mentions several weeks,pretty horrific stuff. It just stuck out to me in the lead as an ambiguity. I've copyedited most of the lede now anyway. Regarding the abbreviated name, I know others do it on Wikipedia, I think an Indian is as likely to understand "Ted" as the practice of including it between his given and family names. In any case, the difference between "Ted" and "Theodore" is in the title and first line. Though it's not a debate to have here. I'll try and go through the article again asap. Best, --Ktlynch (talk) 07:55, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

• Comment (kind of a conditional oppose, hoping to support). The images are a mess and need to be resolved before this can be FA. I've begun reading the article, though, and it appears to be generally well-written (some issues but I'm doing a light copyedit and hopefully between my work and a bit of work from others this will be resolved), interesting, and well-researched. (I know basically nothing about Bundy, so I can't speak to whether it's accurate - but it seems to be a good introduction for a reader with no background.) I intend to finish reading/copyediting the article and will comment more later. Hoping to support this one - looks like with a bit of polishing it will have what it takes. Calliopejen1 (talk) 16:28, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.