City of Champaign v. Madigan is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Article milestones Date Process Result January 27, 2021 Good article nominee Listed February 16, 2024 Featured article candidate Promoted
	A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on January 18, 2021. The text of the entry was: Did you know ... 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?
Current status: Featured article

This article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Illinois Low‑importance 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 Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Law Low‑importance 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 Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Freedom of speech Low‑importance 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 Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Text and/or other creative content from this version of Illinois Public Access Opinion 16-006 was copied or moved into City of Champaign v. Madigan with this edit. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted so long as the latter page exists.

This review is transcluded from Talk:City of Champaign v. Madigan/GA1. 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

  I've added content about an appellate case in 2020. Edge3 (talk) 05:35, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

  Great idea. I've rearranged the lead. Edge3 (talk) 02:01, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

No worries! I'll leave it as-is. Thanks for your input. Edge3 (talk) 17:24, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Gog the Mild. I noticed that you've been adding the word "the" before "FOIA" throughout the article. Colloquially, "FOIA" in Illinois is referred to in conversation and in writing without the article. See Illinois Freedom of Information Act (which I wrote) and the sources I cited for that article.

Based on a quick survey of the case law in Illinois, it appears that there has been a shift in how "FOIA" is referred to in writing. Bowie v. Evanston Community Consolidated School District 65 (1988) and Lieber v. Board of Trustees of Southern Illinois University (1997) are both important cases in FOIA jurisprudence, and they both use the article "the" before "FOIA". On the other hand, more recent cases, including Kalven v. City of Chicago (2014), Uptown People's Law Center v. Department of Corrections (2014), and Better Government Association v. City of Chicago Office of Mayor (2020), do not.

Most significantly, in the instant case City of Champaign v. Madigan, neither the Appellate Court opinion nor the Attorney General opinion use the word "the" before "FOIA". Edge3 (talk) 18:59, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am not that bothered, the MoS requires standard English, not colloquial Illinois. (I know you all talk funny over there. ) If I were to amend an article about my local area to how it might appear in the local paper you would probably roll around laughing. [3] Gog the Mild (talk) 20:22, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We use standard English in Illinois, I promise! Especially our courts. ;-) And according to this reference, since "FOIA" is an acronym, you do not need to precede it with "the". Edge3 (talk) 00:31, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]