Talk:Illinois Public Access Opinion 16-006/GA1

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

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

Review

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

Really interesting article.
 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * see notes below
 * 1) 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
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * 1) 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):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * On hold until the issues noted are addressed Passed!
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * On hold until the issues noted are addressed Passed!
 * On hold until the issues noted are addressed Passed!

Discussion
Thanks for your feedback! I'll address the remaining concerns shortly. Edge3 (talk) 02:48, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * See replies above - tiny issue with "This development" DannyS712 (talk) 02:12, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Let me know if there's anything else you think should be changed. Edge3 (talk) 03:47, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Nothing else is needed - looks good to me, passed! --DannyS712 (talk) 04:07, 11 February 2021 (UTC)