Second Opinion

Original Review

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

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. — Ghost River 17:49, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Good Article review progress box

Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV ()

3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant ()

Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

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. — Ghost River 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 opinion has been requested due personal circumstances of the original reviewer; We wish GhostRiver a speedy and healthful recovery.

Starts GA Second Opinion. Thank you --Whiteguru (talk) 23:39, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Instructions: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Good_article_reassessment

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) 04:59, 13 June 2022 (UTC)