Template:Did you know nominations/City of Champaign v. Madigan
- 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.
The result was: promoted by Cwmhiraeth (talk) 07:25, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
City of Champaign v. Madigan
- ... that City of Champaign v. Madigan was the first decision by an Illinois court addressing whether the private emails of government officials are subject to public disclosure? Source: "The first court decision on whether private emails are subject to FOIA was an appeal of PAC Opinion 11-006... In City of Champaign v. Madigan..." ([1], p. 14)
- ALT1:... that an Illinois appellate court ruled that city officials of Champaign, Illinois had to publicly disclose messages they had sent in private during a city council meeting? Sources: "a reporter ... attended a public meeting of the Champaign City Council and noticed some aldermen using their personal cell phones and other electronic devices to send messages during the meeting." ([2])
"For the reasons stated, communications 'pertaining to public business' and sent to and from individual city council member's personal electronic devices during the time city council meetings ... were convened should be turned over to the City's FOIA officer for review of what information, if any, should be...provided to [the FOIA requester]." (Ibid.)
- ALT1:... that an Illinois appellate court ruled that city officials of Champaign, Illinois had to publicly disclose messages they had sent in private during a city council meeting? Sources: "a reporter ... attended a public meeting of the Champaign City Council and noticed some aldermen using their personal cell phones and other electronic devices to send messages during the meeting." ([2])
- Reviewed: Rodrigo Maroni
Moved to mainspace by Edge3 (talk). Self-nominated at 01:04, 2 January 2021 (UTC).
- New enough? Yes. Moved to main 30 December 2020, nominated 2 January 2021.
- Long enough? Yes, easily.
- Within policy? Yes it is a good example of a compliant article. I didn't find copying problems (but see below). It is nicely written as well.
- Hook? the first is OK. I question Alt1 as it stands because I think "messages they had sent" should read "messages pertaining to public business they had sent". However the first hook seems to avoid this snag (if I am understanding properly!) Cited OK in article and confirmed in cited reference.
- QPQ? Yes.
- Image? No image is suggested for the main page but both images in the article are good.
- I see this article and Illinois Public Access Opinion 16-006 were being developed at the same time and copyiing has happened between them. For example diff. I think this is actually OK because the information is appropriate in both articles and is not redundant. Also, since the author is copying their own text this is OK by WP:NOATT. Also I think there is still easily sufficient original text to meet DYK's size rule. However, it would be helpful to indicate copying by {{copied}} on the talk pages, or something similar.
Thincat (talk)
overall with ALT0 looks the score to me. Thincat (talk) 20:36, 10 January 2021 (UTC)