Talk:City of Champaign v. Madigan/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Barkeep49 (talk · contribs) 17:34, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Review

 * Just noting that I do the LEAD last.
 * Are there any license compatible pictures of the city council or Mayor that could be added as an illustration?
 * Short answer: yes, there are photos available. But if I add another photo, e.g. to the "Background" section, I risk a MOS:SANDWICH with the infobox. I suppose I could add the photo towards the bottom of the article, such as "Reactions and subsequent developments", but that section really doesn't talk about the city council or the mayor. Longer answer: What photo should I add? Don Gerard, the mayor at the time, appears to have uploaded his own photo to his Wikipedia article. I'm generally skeptical of photos that are uploaded by the subjects themselves, since copyright is technically owned by the photographer, not the subject. But there likely was an agreement (whether formal or implied) by the photographer that Gerard could use and license the photo for any purpose. I'm not sure how this is normally handled on Commons, but if the license is suitable then I can use it on this article. There are several for the municipal building. (See commons:Category:City Building (Champaign, Illinois).) I suppose I could use one of those photos to represent the Champaign government. One shortcoming is that those photos don't depict the mayor or the city council members themselves. I couldn't find freely-licensed photos of the city council. Edge3 (talk) 05:43, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah that Mayor pic is not actually policy compliant so we shouldn't use it in this article. I was more suggesting a group shot of the council (or even a photo taken during a meeting). My quick search doesn't show any of that so I think it's great to stick with the two photos you already have. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:45, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't think the description of the PAC is quite right or at least it's not the right description for a reader of this article who doesn't know about the office. I think language closer to what is found in that article's first sentence is more accruate.
 * Thanks for the tip. I borrowed the text from the PAC article and incorporated it here. Edge3 (talk) 02:01, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Who issued the opinion is an interesting question. While it went out under Madigan's name it was authored and signed by Michael Luke "counsel to the Attorney General". At minimum I'd give his name, rather than Madigan's, as author or co-author. Perhaps this can be dealt with as a note for the article itself?
 * An interesting question, indeed. I do think Madigan herself should be the credited "author" of the opinion. She is one of the named defendants in this case (City of Champaign v. Madigan). The FOIA statute explicitly states that the "Attorney General" issues the opinion. Granted, "Attorney General" could be interpreted as the person holding the office, or the government agency that he/she controls, so I understand your point.  Although many sources, especially news articles, tend to refer to Madigan directly, others might just say "the Attorney General". Binding opinions usually involve several layers of review in the AG's office, which would include attorneys working under the PAC, the PAC herself, and other senior officials under the Attorney General. Michael Luke may have been involved in the review, but the Attorney General herself was responsible for the opinion. The sources and the appellate opinion do not mention Luke at all, therefore I don't believe it would be appropriate to mention him. Hopefully, the changes in response to the comment below help to resolve these concerns. Let me know what you think. Edge3 (talk) 05:43, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I thought about it a bit more, and I see your point about Luke's signature. I've added a note. Hopefully that helps. Edge3 (talk) 05:57, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I think it's misleading to use she pronouns. Probably need to use the office as the subject of that action as the appellate decision does. "The Attorney General..." "It...."
 * Fair point, and I think it relates to the comment immediately above this one. I've changed it. Let me know if I missed anything. Edge3 (talk) 05:43, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
 * How did you decide on using O'Driscoll at such length? For instance here's a Holland & Knight analysis of the decision
 * I use O'Driscoll because he was mentioned in the source, which I deemed reliable. I'm aware of the Holland & Knight article, but I had WP:SELFPUBLISH concerns about using it. At the bottom of that page you linked, you'll see a note that states: "© Holland & Knight LLP 2021 | Attorney Advertising". That indicates that Holland & Knight itself is the publisher (not JD Supra), and it also has a commercial interest in disseminating this information. I'm not quite sure how to describe JD Supra, as it doesn't fit our traditional categories of sources. (Perhaps churnalism?) My understanding is that law firms post articles on that website to boost their online visibility and reputation. Edge3 (talk) 04:19, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Jumping from O'Driscoll to the appellate court's recommendation feels a bit SYNTHY to me.
 * I rearranged the paragraph. Let me know if that works. Edge3 (talk) 02:19, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure two paragraphs on the bills that went nowhere is appropriate coverage.
 * I agree. I've trimmed that paragraph in question. Edge3 (talk) 01:58, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
 * There's mention of this case in the Laquan Macdonald situation. Has this opinion been cited in any other cases?
 * I'll see if I can dig up other cases. In the meantime, I'd like to note that in many cases, the information would be coming from JD Supra or blogs that are self-published by various law firms that specialize in municipal law (e.g. Municipal Minute or Tressler LLP's blog). As I note above, I have WP:SELFPUBLISH concerns about using such information. Let me know if you view it differently. But I'll do some extra research anyway, just to ensure I haven't missed anything. Edge3 (talk) 04:19, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I've added content about an appellate case in 2020. Edge3 (talk) 05:35, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
 * No issues with copyright or the selected images.
 * LEAD summarizes appropriately the rest of the article. One (optional) suggestion is to move the finding of the court to the second sentence rather that proceeding in a strictly chronological order. It is important information about why this is notable in the first place imo. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:42, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Great idea. I've rearranged the lead. Edge3 (talk) 02:01, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Discussion
I'm happy to do this review. Will get around to beginning it later this week or next week. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:34, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Good evening! Thanks so much for picking up the review. I will reply to your points above. Edge3 (talk) 05:43, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Question for you... should I switch "Attorney General" and "Appellate Court" to lower case in all cases, or are there certain cases where it is appropriate to capitalize per MOS:JOBTITLES and MOS:POLITICALUNITS? I was about to change those, but I figured I should ask you first, since you likely have an opinion. Edge3 (talk) 16:50, 22 January 2021 (UTC)


 * I believe those are appropriately capitalized per our style guide. However, I'll also say that this kind of copyediting is not my strength, so take it for what that's worth. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:10, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
 * No worries! I'll leave it as-is. Thanks for your input. Edge3 (talk) 17:24, 22 January 2021 (UTC)