The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that after
Illinois overhauled its Freedom of Information Act on January 1, 2010, the law became regarded as one of the most liberal public-records statutes in the United States?
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following
WikiProjects:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Illinois, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Illinois on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IllinoisWikipedia:WikiProject IllinoisTemplate:WikiProject IllinoisWikiProject Illinois articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the
legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Freedom of speech, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Freedom of speech on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Freedom of speechWikipedia:WikiProject Freedom of speechTemplate:WikiProject Freedom of speechFreedom of speech articles
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as
this nomination's talk page,
the article's talk page or
Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.
I find ALT0 more interesting. There might be room to combine them, though, e.g. "... that Illinois was the last U.S. state to enact a freedom of information act but that its version is regarded as one of the most liberal?" {{u|Sdkb}}talk04:08, 8 December 2020 (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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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
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