Talk:Official Information Act 1982/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Naypta (talk · contribs) 09:23, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	Under the Official Secrets Act 1951, unauthorised disclosure was a criminal offence - unauthorised disclosure of what? I appreciate that the source itself is unclear on this point, saying "releasing official information was an offence", but I'm clear neither from the article nor from the source as to specifically what circumstances would lead to it being an offence. Surely it couldn't have been the case that all release of government information was an offence - or at least, if it was, I think that ought to be made clearer, as it strikes me as very surprising! Minor nitpick, but Failure to respond to a request (known as "deemed refusal") - is it known as that? The given source talks about "events being deemed to be a refusal", but not about them being known as "deemed refusal" events.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	To ensure compliance with MOS:INTRO, and to make sure readers have a good summary in the introduction, I think it'd be worth having a sentence or two dedicated to the reform efforts that have been made, as there's a fairly significant part of the article talking about that.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	I can see that the claim about is part of New Zealand's uncodified constitution is sourced to the Ombudsman, and through them to the NZ Court of Appeal in 1988, but it may be worth slightly clarifying that sentence to say "is considered by the Court of Appeal to be part" rather than "is part", as that is a subject of debate due to the very nature of an uncodified constitution. A government saying that they themselves are "open" (specific quote from the source is In 2011 New Zealand had, by international standards, a strong culture of openness in government) is probably not a reliable source for the definitive claim It has significantly changed the culture of government, leading to a culture of openness under which a great deal of information is made public as a matter of routine. It might be worth either finding an independent source on that, or changing it to "the NZ government claims" etc.
	2c. it contains no original research.	Prior to 1982, official information was assumed to be the property of the government, not the people does not appear to have a verifiable source. But from the 1960s onwards, there was greater pressure for openness has no attached source; by whom was the pressure being exerted? If this is meant to be an intro to the following descriptions of the Royal Commission of Enquiry etc, that's fine, but it probably needs slight rephrasing, as "greater pressure for openness" is subjective and would need sourcing, I would think. The creation of the Office of the Ombudsman and changes of administrative law created a presumption that people were entitled to know the reasons for decisions made about them. Environmental campaigns such as the Save Manapouri campaign and the passage of freedom of information legislation overseas created further pressure appears to be unsourced. (also known as the "Danks Committee" after its chair) - by whom? There doesn't seem to be a source to support this. Organisations may charge for responding to large requests, but this is very rare - the cited source does not, as far as I can see, mention the frequency or lack of frequency of requests being chargeable. A few of the latter were implemented via a Statutes Amendment Bill in 2003, but core recommendations were not is apparently unsourced.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	The scope of the Act is extremely broad - broad in comparison to what? There's no cited source for this, and it's a value judgement, so it ought to have one. Individuals find it easier to learn if they have been treated fairly by government agencies is a rather selective quote from This has probably been achieved to some degree. Under the Act, an individual can secure information of interest to their affairs. Individuals and can, more effectively than before, find out if they have been fairly treated. In routine cases at least, it is probably quite simple to get the sort of information that individuals require in many instances - I think the description there should be broadened to include quite a lot more nuance that's in the actual cited report.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	Where has the license for File:PeterThielOIA.jpg come from? Is all DIA work CC-BY?
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.

• This is looking good so far! I'm picking up a few recommendations, which I'll include in the table above once I've completed my first pass. Wanted to note here straight up though that I think this would be a fantastic DYK nom - "... that asking the New Zealand Government whether David Seymour is a hologram won't get you anywhere?" Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 09:39, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

This is really good feedback so far, thanks (and I'll keep an eye out for more). I'll wait for the full report before thinking about extra sourcing and rewording, but for the Thiel release image, everything on DIA's website (bar the departmental logo and NZ government logo) is CC-BY, per their copyright statement [here](https://www.dia.govt.nz/Copyright). --IdiotSavant (talk) 11:19, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

@IdiotSavant: Cheers! I've passed 6a, and I've also linked to that page on the Commons listing. I think for the most part, the other parts of the review are a good summary of the blockers to GA status I'm seeing at the moment Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 12:30, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

I'll do more tomorrow, but on rarity of charging: I've added a source and removed the "very" (since 4% doesn't seem to merit it). I have a better, more recent one, which OIA practitioners would regard as reliable, but I'm highly nervous about WP:SELFCITE and WP:SELFPUB. --IdiotSavant (talk) 14:57, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

On 2b.2, while Te Ara: The Encyclopedia of New Zealand was established by the Ministry for Culture and Heritage, its not a government source any more than TVNZ or RNZ are. It consists of articles by independent experts (and this one is by someone who is a recognised expert in the field, who'd appear more in the references if I had her book to hand). Though I'll dig for extra stuff to back it up with.--IdiotSavant (talk) 07:35, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Awesome, struck! Amazing job with the supporting references :) Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 12:01, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

1a.2 - the full term is "delay deemed refusal", which gets shortened a lot. I've put in the full one. --IdiotSavant (talk) 14:53, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

• I've done the first pass of this, added references, tweaked wording, and updated the intro. Can you check whether its OK, and whether there's anything more I need to add? --IdiotSavant (talk) 14:53, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

  Thanks very much, IdiotSavant - nice job! Just a couple of bits from 1a left as far as I can see. 1a.1 is still a concern to me; there's no clarification on "unauthorised disclosure" and what that means. I actually went and looked up the original legislation here, and it uses wording that's very broad, but does at least give some pointers, and might be useful as a source: I'd say something along the lines of unauthorised disclosure of official information to anyone who it was "not in the interest of the state" to disclose the information to, perhaps.

  1a.2. is now clear - thanks! - but now the claim that it's known as "delay deemed refusal" seems to be unsourced, unless I'm missing something (which is more than possible!)

  Once those are sorted, I think we're good to go! Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 22:42, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Added source for "delay deemed refusal", and now echoing the "without specific reason and authorisation" from the Danks Report, plus another ref.--IdiotSavant (talk) 23:44, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

@IdiotSavant: GA passed! Congratulations on a fantastic article, and thanks for working out all the changes Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 11:01, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Thankyou. This has been a really good experience, and the feedback definitely made it a better article. Now to let it rest a bit, then maybe I'll think about what I can do for FA review.--IdiotSavant (talk) 11:24, 4 July 2020 (UTC)