Talk:Illinois Public Access Opinion 16-006/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: DannyS712 (talk · contribs) 01:33, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Review

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

Really interesting article.

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
see notes below
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
earwigs shows some overall, and while it looks like most of it is due to quotes or case names, the matches are rather high so if you could rephrase the parts that aren't quotes/names if possible, that would be great Looks okay now, most of the matches are from quotes or case names
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
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 fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:
~~On hold until the issues noted are addressed~~ Passed!

Notes

Lede: In this matter, the Attorney General found - does "this" refer to the prior appellate court decision matter or the murder of Laquan McDonald matter? Its not clear
Lede: The ruling was hailed by - does "The ruling" refer to the prior ruling discussed at the start of the paragraph, or the Illinois Public Access Opinion 16-006 ruling? Not clear
Background: Off-duty police officers reportedly used their personal devices to communicate on accounts not owned by CPD. - this is a bit confusing. Accounts can be owned? Specifying that its using accounts not owned by CPD suggests that personal devices can also be used for CPD accounts, and then there is also the non-personal devices. Perhaps "used their personal accounts" to communicate"? Also, what does this have to do with anything? I assume its because they were communicating about the incident? A bit later it clarifies that CNN asked for "all emails ... from Police Department email accounts and personal email accounts where business was discussed" so perhaps clarify in the initial sentence that the off-duty officers were discussing business, so its clear how that connects (otherwise it could be that they are just texting friends and otherwise using their personal devices normally, which is what you would expect)
Opinion: To determine whether an email pertains to public business, the inquiry must focus on the content of the email, not the method by which it is transmitted. - what inquiry? Suggest "an inquiry"
Reactions: Davis further suggested - what was Davis' first suggestion? I don't see it, so I'm confused by the "further"
I've addressed all five comments above via this edit. Please let me know if I need to make additional changes. Edge3 (talk) 02:48, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The remaining This development in the lede is still unclear to me. Perhaps split the paragraph, so its clear its no longer discussing City of Champaign v. Madigan? --DannyS712 (talk) 02:02, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I've split that paragraph and clarified it further by adding "more recent". (See edit.) Edge3 (talk) 03:46, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

General:

for enforcing FOIA, are required under FOIA, etc. - should probably be "the FOIA"
Public bodies in Illinois, including CPD, etc. should also probably be "the CPD". Maybe? Not as sure on that one as I read it in my head
(Replying to both points above.) Most sources, including the opinion itself, doesn't include "the" before "FOIA". I also see that in the opinion, "the" appears before "CPD" in very few cases, but certainly not in the majority of cases. Looking at WP:THE, it's not entirely clear which style is preferred, but that guideline tends to point towards whatever is commonly used in reliable sources. Edge3 (talk) 02:48, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Make sense, ack --DannyS712 (talk) 02:02, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Why are the notes (a, b, c) not refences?
I'm trying to separate the explanatory footnotes from the sources. (See WP:REFGROUP and WP:EXPLNOTE.) The notes (a, b, c) are not WP:RS that I'm using as citations to comply with WP:V. Rather, those notes are meant to provide additional context or information. Two of them are court cases; the only thing I'm doing is providing the full case citation, with a link to the judicial opinion. The third note is a link to a state statute, since we don't have a Wikipedia article on that statute. Does that make sense? Let me know if you disagree with my usage of explanatory footnotes. Edge3 (talk) 02:48, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. To me they all look like they would be references, but I guess I'm not very familiar with using explanatory footnotes in articles. --DannyS712 (talk) 02:02, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Thanks for your feedback! I'll address the remaining concerns shortly. Edge3 (talk) 02:48, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've reworded some portions to avoid close paraphrasing. Let me know if there are other portions you would like me to review. Edge3 (talk) 05:25, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Edge3: See replies above - tiny issue with "This development" DannyS712 (talk) 02:12, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@DannyS712: Thanks! Let me know if there's anything else you think should be changed. Edge3 (talk) 03:47, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing else is needed - looks good to me, passed! --DannyS712 (talk) 04:07, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]