Talk:Illinois Freedom of Information Act/GA1

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: Shushugah (talk · contribs) 21:40, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

It is reasonably well written.
a. (prose, spelling, and grammar):

The grammar and text is high quality. It is written in a very WP:TECHNICAL language, but I do not think it can be written in a different way, without removing crucial information.

b. (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

I could imagine ordering Scope before Illinois Freedom of Information Act#History section, but it is just a friendly suggestion.
In one of the earliest versions of this article, the 'Scope' section came before 'History'. However, the 'History' section provides important context into the evolution of the law into the version that we have today. Therefore, I think the current order of content is more fitting. Edge3 (talk) 06:20, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a. (reference section):

b. (citations to reliable sources):

c. (OR):

Given the number of sources, I only spot checked for a few.

d. (copyvio and plagiarism):

Checked with Earwig,
It is broad in its coverage.
a. (major aspects):

The history and public records sections are the longest, but all the information there is relevant and interesting.

b. (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:

I looked at the potentially most contentious topics, namely how it covers the Chicago machine's resistance to its implementations, and police non-compliance and it manages to cover both in neutral encyclopedic tone.
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
a. (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales):

All public domain or CC 2.0 SA. I wonder how many of the images were obtained via FOIA
I obtained the photo of Susan Catania by visiting the main branch of the Chicago Public Library and scanning a hardcopy of her official biography. The photo of Barbara Flynn Currie came from the Abraham Lincoln Presidential Library and Museum, which is a state agency and therefore subject to FOIA. However, I obtained Currie's photo not through a FOIA request, but rather a direct email to the department responsible for the museum's photo collections.

The minutes of the Elmhurst Community Unit School District 205 closed session were released to the public following an Open Meetings Act lawsuit. (I filed the lawsuit.) As for the blank form and binding opinion published by the Attorney General's office, those are readily available on the agency's website. No FOIA requests required to access those records. I hope this answers your question. :) Edge3 (talk) 06:20, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

b. (appropriate use with suitable captions):

There are a lot of images already, vast majority are relevant/interesting. I would remove File:Ill. Gov. Pat Quinn 2010.jpg as being too miscellaneous. I expected it to be the signing of Public Act 96–542, but it's just a random bill-signing.
Removed, as recommended. Edge3 (talk) 06:20, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Overall:
Pass/fail:

(Criteria marked are unassessed)

Review[edit]

This article is basically a Good Article already, but I always try to find something to suggest for improvement. I don't have concrete suggestions here, but I am familiar with FOIA proceedings and I still found this to be a longer/more challenging read, because of how thorough it was, but the lede is an adequate summary of the entire body. So my only real suggestion is to remove one of the images. Sourcing consistency is not a requirement in GAN, but I noticed that some references are inside the citations section, creating inconsistencies, but perhaps I misunderstood it.

Thank you for improving one of the most interesting US state FOIA articles on Wikipedia! It was a pleasure reviewing! ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 21:40, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Shushugah: Thank you for your feedback! I'm currently busy but hope to address your comments over the weekend or early next week. Edge3 (talk) 11:01, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Shushugah: Thanks for your patience! I've responded to your comments above. Edge3 (talk) 06:20, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding sourcing consistency, I use short citations when citing from different pages of a multi-page reference. Otherwise, I use full citations when there's no need to distinguish between individual pages. See WP:SFN. I don't believe Wikipedia requires an all-or-nothing approach when deciding whether to use short citations. Edge3 (talk) 06:34, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Edge3 I am in agreement with the above. Hope you had a good weekend. There is one more lingering question. When I was checking the sources, I noticed Roland Burris is cited, but not used anywhere. This should either be removed, or moved into a WP:FURTHER READING section. What do you think? ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 17:53, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Shushugah: Good catch! Burris 1994 was superseded by Ryan 1999, but I must have forgotten to remove the Burris citation when updating the references. I've removed it. Edge3 (talk) 23:44, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]