Talk:Murder of Peter Weinberger

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Kidnapping of Peter Weinberger/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: GhostRiver (talk · contribs) 17:49, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Hello! I'll be reviewing this article to help reduce the good article nomination backlog and to gain points in the WP:WIKICUP. Although quid pro quo is not required, if you fancy returning the favor, I have a list of articles in need of review here. — GhostRiver 17:49, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Infobox and lede

• "1-month-old baby" → "one-month-old infant"  Done
• ransom should be linked  Done
• Lede feels too short to adequately summarize main points; should include more about LaMarca's motives, capture, trial, etc.  Done
• Per MOS:LEADCITE, uncontroversial information in the lede that is also in the body doesn't need to be cited in the lede  Done

Kidnapping of Peter Weinberger

• Source does not say approximately 32 days, it actually says he was 33 days old       Source 7 gives 32 days as age. As entered.
• Specify 10 a.m. or p.m., and you also don't need the :00 part unless you're in military time per MOS:TIME  Done
• "2-year-old" → "two-year-old" per MOS:NUMERAL  Done
• "The Weinbergers paid the ransom with the financial help of several relatives due to their own income being modest." → "The Weinbergers were of a modest income and required the financial aid of several relatives to pay the ransom."  Done
• "on July 4 (Independence Day in the United States), banks in the area were closed" → "on Independence Day, a federal holiday in the United States, area banks were closed"  Done
• "attention to it" → "attention to the event"  Done
• "from retrieving the money" → "from returning to retrieve the money"  Done

Investigation

• Unclear if "the next day" here is July 5 or 6, as we end the last section on July 5
• "that a pharmacist was theoretically required to prepare" → "that theoretically required pharmacy preparation"  Done
• "and tip off" → "and alert"  Done
• "Morris claimed" → "He claimed"  Done
• "to snatch" → "to steal"  Done

Apprehension and interrogation

• Comma after "Brooklyn, New York" per MOS:GEOCOMMA  Done
• "he abandoned Peter Weinberger alive in a wooded area by the Northern State Parkway due to having been scared by the press coverage of the kidnapping" → "he had been scared by press coverage of the kidnapping and subsequently abandoned Peter Weinberger alive in a wooden area by the Northern State Parkway."  Done
• Any idea why he wanted to "make life difficult" for Parisi?       This question deserves a comment. Are there any references about Parisi?

Trial

• Link "not guilty by reason of insanity" to Insanity defense  Done
• "he motioned for a change of venue due to pretrial publicity in the Nassau County local press" → "he motioned that the trial be moved out of Nassau County due to the publicity the case had received in the local press"  Done
• "insane when he took Peter Weinberger and also insane when he abandoned the baby" → "insane both during the kidnapping and when he later abandoned Weinberger"  Done
• Why did he get the automatic appeal (besides it being law)? What law was triggered, that any capital punishment cases are appealed?       This question deserves a response. In 1957, what was the then law on capital punishment sentences meriting automatic appeal?

Execution

• Due to filing appeals, LaMarca postponed the execution of his death sentence for over 18 months. I don't love the phrasing of this; it makes it sound like LaMarca himself was personally postponing everything when that was obviously not how it worked
• "11:00 PM" → "11:00 p.m." per MOS:TIME  Done
• "He was pronounced dead at 11:03" → "He was pronounced dead three minutes later"  Done
• Section doesn't actually mention that the execution took place at Sing Sing  Done

Aftermath

• after 1934 amendments should be rephrased to remove the ambiguity whereby someone could think that a number of 1,934 amendments were made to the Act  Done
• "the FBI was" → "the FBI were"  Done
• "to get involved" → "to become involved"  Done
• "was 11 years old"  Done

References

• The Orange Leader clipping definitely needs to be archived in case Ancestry deletes it  Done
• In [2], "FBI" should be spelled out and should be the publisher parameter, not the work  Done
• The Orange Leader, Star-Gazette, Daily News, Democrat and Chronicle, The Oneonta Star, and Newsday all need to use the "work" parameter  Done
• "Daily News" also needs to specify New York Daily News as opposed to, say, Dayton Daily News  Done
• Anything from Newspapers.com needs to have a parameter of "|via=Newspapers.com"  Done

General comments

• Images are all old enough to be public domain and are relevant Checked
• No stability concerns in the revision history Checked
• Earwig score is artificially inflated due to direct quotes and some WP:LIMITED phrases Checked

Now that I've done a line edit, I want to address my biggest concern with this article, which is the focus. It's called Angelo LaMarca, not Kidnapping of Peter Weinberger. There is almost nothing on LaMarca's early and personal life, we just jump right into the crime. Obviously, the crime is what he's best known for, but if the article is going to be named for the man and not the crime, then he needs to be the focus. I'm not failing this article outright, but I do think some significant work will be required to fulfill criterion #3, which concerns broadness and focus. — GhostRiver 17:17, 28 March 2022 (UTC) Checked

Hi - thanks again, so much, for all of your help with the article. I think I addressed every issue, and I think I fixed all of the references' formatting issues as well. I also think that the title "Kidnapping of Peter Weinberger" is far more appropriate and definitely fits the scope of the article much more appropriately than "Angelo LaMarca" (which is now a redirect page). One final quick question - is it necessary to archive all of the Newspapers.com clippings? (And if it is not, would it still be desired/preferable?) Afddiary (talk) 11:41, 23 April 2022 (UTC)  Highly likely     It is better to archive the Newspapers.com clippings. If this is not done, over time, these turn into 404 blanks. This occurs on many articles.

---

 

GA Second Opinion

A second reviewer has been requested due personal circumstances of the original reviewer; We wish GhostRiver a speedy and healthful recovery.

---

Observations

There are some responses to matters not attended to above:

• Any idea why he wanted to "make life difficult" for Parisi?
• Why did he get the automatic appeal (besides it being law)? What law was triggered, that any capital punishment cases are appealed?
• The quick question - is it necessary to archive all of the Newspapers.com clippings? matter.
• Good work has been done both in the original review by GhostRiver and the prompt responses by Afddiary. Renaming this article and leaving a redirect is a most appropriate solution, well done. Responses to the matters raised above will likely see the article rise to Good Article status. --Whiteguru (talk) 04:55, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Thanks so much for offering to help! I'm very sorry that I missed a few of the points made above. I'll make the corrections and archive the Newspapers.com clippings ASAP.

For the first point, I tried finding a source on that information, but I couldn't find one that elaborated on the relationship between Parisi and LaMarca (and why LaMarca wanted to "make life difficult" for him). Honestly, I don't even know how Parisi and LaMarca knew each other. The most detailed source I found was the appeal, which only said:

After his arraignment, La Marca identified one Joe Parisi as his accomplice. When Parisi was apprehended, La Marca recanted, claiming that he had merely wished to get Parisi into difficulty. He then told detectives that his accomplice was one "Shorty", but although they located one "Streety", who established his innocence, they were unable to locate "Shorty." That was the last information police obtained from defendant concerning any accomplice. [1]

I can keep looking, but if I still can't find one, should I just delete that part from the article?

Thank you! Afddiary (talk) 12:09, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

@Afddiary Your explanation is sufficient regarding Parisi. Leave the text as it is, the query is satisfied here.

Leave a note on this page when you have completed archiving the Newspaper.com references and this will bring the GA review to a conclusion. Thank you for your work. --Whiteguru (talk) 22:57, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

I have finished archiving the Newspaper.com references (as well as a few others that I missed). I also deleted the sentence on the automatic appeal; I don't know the exact law that was/is triggered to permit automatic appeals in death penalty cases. I've tried looking, but I can only find references to a generic law of that sort, and nothing that elaborates on what law it is. (Several states had/have identical laws on direct appeals of that sort, but I don't know exactly which one to cite for NY, the law's name, or exactly when the law was implemented.)

Thanks so much for all of your help! Afddiary (talk) 16:33, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Your diligence here serves you - and this article - well. The archiving of Newspaper.com references is noted, as is your action with regard to the unclear source of legislation regarding automatic appeals for capital punishment sentences in New York state. Good work. I'm passing this as a Good Article! --Whiteguru (talk) 21:06, 14 June 2022 (UTC)