Talk:Billy the Axeman

Feedback from AfC reviewer

This draft clearly had a lot of work and research put into it, which is sincerely appreciated. It still has a long way to go, though, and I've tried to tag issues in the article wherever possible. The most pressing ones to me are the excessive amounts of detail for some of the crime events (§ Classic theory in particular reads more like a scary story you'd hear by a campfire than an encyclopedic article), the lack of page numbers for most of the book citations, which prevented me from verifying many references, and the possible synthesis of sources bordering many times on original research (I removed the blatant violations). Even with these issues, this now-article looks very promising, and I look forward to seeing how it's developed in the future! —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 23:17, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Can you give an example on synthesis of resources and how this would constitute new research? Kjansen86 (talk) 12:25, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Sure! For clarity, let's use the example of a paragraph I removed (diff) during the review:

Starting with Todd Elliott and subsequently with Bill James and McCarthy James, the murders that are assumed to have been committed by the Midwestern axe murderer have been increased substantially. If these extended theories are correct, the number of murders committed by this killer may be close to one hundred deaths. This would make him one of the most prolific serial killers in American history.

There are several things I take issue with here. Firstly, this is an interpolation between the findings of two publications, which is a meta-analysis of the literature on the subject. Any analytical or interpretive readings of sources have to themselves be supported by reliable sources. It also implies that there has been commentary in reliable sources about the history of theories on the subject, which doesn't seem to be the case. In other words, unless there was some third source that had specifically called out the increase in estimated victims between these two sources, presenting their findings in this way is original research. There's also the highly opinionated "If these... are correct", which obviously creates the implication that some scholars might believe them to be incorrect. See Wikipedia:Neutral point of view § Words to watch. Finally, there's the conclusion that the subject was among the most prolific serial killers, which is also unsourced. Again, this seems to be a comparison between two sources (the theories on the number of victims and the list of most prolific serial killers) that reaches a synthetic conclusion that neither of those sources actually made. Hopefully that answers your question, and let me know if there's anything else I can help with! —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 17:41, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

== Has anyone looked at the Lewis Spencer family murders of 1877 in missouri I Believe that may have been his first crimes! ==

Man on the train serial killer 38.135.219.42 (talk) 00:15, 26 March 2024 (UTC)