Talk:Edmund Kemper/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Jclemens (talk · contribs) 07:13, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	Pretty good, with a few items noted.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Not sure about the IPC section as it stands now. Others seem appropriate.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	See Wikipedia:External links/Perennial websites#Find-a-Grave
	2c. it contains no original research.	None noted
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	Earwig's Tool finds multiple issues that might be close paraphrasing... but based on the articles, I'm not sure which direction. Our article has been around since 2008, and the others all look later.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Fine.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Fine
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	No issues noted.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	Approrpiate
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	Everything has an FUR, but I'm not sure the number and choice of FUR images meets WP:NFCC #3a and 8
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	See above.
	7. Overall assessment.	Passing per improvements.

First Read Through

• "He also acted out rituals with the dolls of his younger sister, Allyn Kemper, that culminated in him removing their heads and hands,[13] and held a dark fantasy life; demonstrated on one occasion when Kemper's elder sister, Susan Kemper, teased him and asked why he doesn’t try to kiss his teacher, he replied: "If I kiss her, I’d have to kill her first."" I'm pretty sure a semicolon is the wrong way to address this. I think multiple sentences may be in order.
• Copyvio? This is the "worst" one: [1]
• "Kemper was released from Atascadero on his 21st birthday, December 18, 1969, after serving five years and proving to the parole board that he would be safe to release – in part being able to prove this as he had memorized the responses to 28 different assessment instruments for rehabilitation." I'd lose/change one prov[e/ing].
• Each "in popular culture" reference should have a citation or be removed. Citations should ideally be to an independent RS discussing the citation, rather than to the primary source itself.

So, I am worried most about the copyvio question, images all being fair use, and the Find-A-Grave references. Verbiage can be cleaned up, the rest means it should be ON HOLD until we get these resolved. Jclemens (talk) 19:56, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the read through. I significantly expanded the article but didn't investigate the basic framework that was there before. I'll set upon fixing these issues and get back to you. Cheers. Zaostao (talk) 20:19, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

@Jclemens: The findagrave refs and the material they were supporting is gone. The copyvio issues should be gone now too, although the structure of the article does seem to built upon the truecrime piece so there's still incidences of direct quotations being in both and such. The victims' pictures should meet FUR as I think identification of the victims adds to the understanding of a serial killer in some way. The first image of Kemper is actually a crop of a commons image that is incorrectly listed, i'll fix that, and the other three images (the subject in his youth, around the time of his killing spree, and in prison where he has spent the past 43 years) in my opinion aid the understanding of the subject, or at least would be of interest to readers. Zaostao (talk) 22:38, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm not even certain there *was* any copyvio--my working hypothesis is that those other pieces engaged in close paraphrasing from this Wikipedia article as it was at the time, not vice versa. As far as the images go, I've ping'ed another experienced editor I trust for input on that, as I'm not the world's best expert on fair use images. I appreciate your prompt attention to these matters. Jclemens (talk) 22:45, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Images

Check out the feedback at User talk:Masem#Fair use question. Bottom line is that everything except the infobox image and the image of him being escorted at trial need to go--the encyclopedic value simply isn't there to justify the non-free use. Jclemens (talk) 07:48, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

That's disappointing but understandable. I'll start readjusting the article without the images and get back to you. Thanks. Zaostao (talk) 10:14, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

@Jclemens: I've removed all but the infobox and the being escorted to court images. I also found another commons image which shows the subject at the beginning of his time in prison, and I've used it in place of the removed prison one. I haven't been able to find secondary, reliable sources about any of the material in the Music subsection of the popular culture section—I guess songs about serial killers aren't that popular, strange—so other than trying a BLUE argument which i'm not sure applies, I'll remove that too if you want. Zaostao (talk) 10:49, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

I think the images are OK now. Yes, I would start trimming the uncited IPC content, but you can move it to the talk page rather than deleting it outright, so anyone else who notices it can expand upon it as desired. Jclemens (talk) 03:00, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

@Jclemens: Alright, I've filtered out the unsourced content. Are there any other changes to be made before you can reassess it? Zaostao (talk) 12:02, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Second read through

• "Despite his rejection to become a state trooper, Kemper maintained relationships with Santa Cruz police officers" that introductory clause needs improvement.
• "He kept her body in his room and hid it in a closet overnight, and when his mother left for work the next morning, he had sex with, and removed the bullet from, her body, before dismembering and decapitating it in his mother's bathtub." I think that could just as easily be two sentences and that would improve the readability.
• Koo was still alive when he violated her, correct? At first I was unsure of the "rapist" tag, because his MO seems to have been to murder women and then violate their corpses, which I believe falls outside (that is, to the worse side) the definition of 'rapist'.
• Along these same lines, is it technically correct to use fellatio to describe a sex act performed with a decapitated head? Might Wikt:irrumate or its derivatives be more accurate?
• I don't think you need subheadings in the In Popular Culture section at all, now that you've trimmed it down to three cited instances.

I think I'm going to leave this article for a few days. I suspect the reason no one wanted to GA review this before is that it is so intrinsically disturbing, and compels me to ask questions like the above. Jclemens (talk) 19:26, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes, per the source: "[Kemper] pinched [Koo's] nostrils to force her to black out, and raped her. Then he strangled her until he was sure she was dead." I suppose it was largely the same as necrophilia as there was no struggle or resistance, but I believe the same is true for Ted Bundy, whose article lists him as being a rapist too.

Irrumatio would be more accurate to fellatio, yes. I'll change that and remove the IPC headings.

Alright, that's fine. I agree that the subject matter is rather ghoulish and there's no useful information to be gained by reading it. Anyway, I'll comb through the article to improve the prose so it'll hopefully be GA worthy. Thanks for reviewing it at all. Zaostao (talk) 20:31, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm going to pass this now, with a couple more comments:

• U.S. States... do they really need to be linked?
• Irrumatio probably needs to be linked, since I had to go looking for it myself.

Sorry I can't help you improve this further. I find my emotional detachment insufficient to keep going through with a fine-toothed comb. It's a lesson for me, too, in how close I have to get to an article to be an effective reviewer. Jclemens (talk) 22:41, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

@Jclemens: I've delinked the U.S. in the the infobox, and the individual states in the lede.

Irrumatio is linked at the top of the Later murders section, but I've linked it again further down as well per your request.

That's fine, again, thanks for reviewing it at all. You seem like the type of the editor that this project is built on, so don't strain yourself on articles you've no interest in when there's probably lots out there for GA/FA nomination that are of interest. Zaostao (talk) 23:11, 10 September 2016 (UTC)