Talk:Jamie Kalven

Did you know nomination

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 AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:26, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

Jamie Kalven

• ... that journalist Jamie Kalven (pictured) had to sue for the release of Chicago police misconduct records, and eventually amassed a database of nearly 250,000 allegations against police officers? Source: https://inpursuit.news21.com/2022/09/27/journalist-fights-open-police-misconduct-records-chicago/
  • ALT1: ... that Chicago journalist Jamie Kalven (pictured) obtained the autopsy report confirming that Laquan McDonald was shot by a police officer 16 times, contradicting the official police account of a single gunshot? Source: https://www.chicagoreporter.com/how-chicago-tried-to-cover-up-a-police-execution/
  • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Battle of New Carthage

Jamie Kalven

• • Comment: Proposed Image #2: File:Jamie_Kalven_2022.jpg

Moved to mainspace by Edge3 (talk). Self-nominated at 01:25, 20 June 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Jamie Kalven; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.

• I will review. Cielquiparle (talk) 07:02, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
• Good article, great addition to Wikipedia. Article is lengthy (16,569 characters), new enough (submitted within 6 days of move into main space), well-sourced, neutrally written. Images are striking and appropriately licensed (CC BY-SA 2.0 for the first; 3.0 us for the second). QPQ is done. Both hooks are cited within the article and are backed up by sources provided; both seem long but are less than 200 characters excluding the word "(pictured)". No apparent copyvio, although Earwig reports one 38.3% match with News21 which seems rather high. So @Edge3: Could you take another look to try to reword in places to reduce close paraphrasing / bring the number down a bit? In any case there is at least one match that could be converted to a direct quote (of the Institute website) if needed. Once you've done that, I am happy to approve. Cielquiparle (talk) 11:35, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

  @Cielquiparle: Thanks for reviewing! News21 is freely-licensed under CC BY-3.0-US; see their "Free Content" page. I included a CC attribution template in the reference footnote. Let me know if you have concerns about this. Edge3 (talk) 17:45, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

• Approved. Thanks for adding the license and for reworking content regardless. Cielquiparle (talk) 18:31, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Jamie Kalven/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: MyCatIsAChonk (talk · contribs) 12:32, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

Saw this on DYK, seems like a very interesting person. Happy to review! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 12:32, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

Edge3, I've completed my review, just some small things about the prose and then this article is good to go. Nice job! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 13:30, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

I see you've implemented my suggestions, thank you- good to go for GA! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 22:19, 5 August 2023 (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.	Kalven grew up in Kenwood neighborhood... - "the" is needed before "Kenwood" Afterwards he graduated from Wesleyan University. - comma after "afterwards" Harry died in 1974... - I'd replace harry with "His father", or add a clarification ("Harry, his father, died..."), because it could cause confusion for a skimming reader ...his wife Evans was beaten... - again, clarification would be helpful. Perhaps, "...his wife, Patricia Evans, was beaten..." The "Invisible Institute" was a fictitious name for the blog's publisher. - might just be me, but I'm not entirely sure what this means. What exactly does "fictitious name" mean? In June 2005, counsel for the city... - missing "the" Everytime "FOIA" is stated as a subject or object, it must be preceded with "the". When the FOIA itself is not the object/subject (like in "FOIA requests") "the" is not needed Prose is clear and free of typos.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Add Template:Use American English or otherwise appropriate All the templates and whatnot under "Works" should have "none" placed under the ref parameter Complies with MoS standards- no fiction or words to watch are present, lead is well-written.
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.	Citations are placed under a proper "References" section
	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).	All citations are to news sites or official documents (like court cases)- all reliable.
	2c. it contains no original research.	I did some random checks on some possibly contentious statements, all came up clear.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	Earwig shows a relatively high score for some- the highest score is to a source licensed under CC, and the citation states that some material is taken from the site, so that's all good. The other high score is for the Chicago magazine source, but most of the highlights are for long names or otherwise simple statements like "A Worthy Tradition: Freedom of Speech in America". No copyvios/plagiarism.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Addresses his personal life and the major events in his career- all good.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Stays focused throughout.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	Article stays neutral throughout, particularly in discussions of the various court cases.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	No edit warring.
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.	Images are properly CC/PD tagged.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Images are relevant and properly captioned.
	7. Overall assessment.

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

GA comments

@MyCatIsAChonk Thank you for your review! I wanted to make sure I addressed the rest of your comments, even though you just passed it for GA status. I was delayed in posting this message because I had taken a quick nap. :-)

• The "Invisible Institute" was a fictitious name for the blog's publisher. – "fictitious publisher" means that the Invisible Institute didn't actually exist as a formal entity. Recall that The View from the Ground was a webzine put together by the Kalven, Evans, and Eads as a grassroots project based in Stateway Gardens. There was no need for a formal organization at the time, so they listed Invisible Institute as a "publisher" more as a joke.
• Everytime "FOIA" is stated as a subject or object, it must be preceded with "the". When the FOIA itself is not the object/subject (like in "FOIA requests") "the" is not needed – I disagree with this. I'm somewhat of a FOIA enthusiast myself, and 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.

I did a quick survey of the case law in Illinois, and 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.

Edge3 (talk) 22:51, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

I see then, thanks for clarifying these for me. I'd assumed there was reason for these, and I didn't know about fictitious publishers until now. Thanks! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 23:09, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

@MyCatIsAChonk Thanks! I also see that you have some experience with the FA process, and you even just nominated an article today! Would you say that this article is ready to be nominated? It would be my very first nom, and I have no other experience with FA at all. No pressure to give feedback, of course. My inquiry is completely casual and informal. Edge3 (talk) 23:44, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

@Edge3, it's definitely close to FA quality. The prose is excellent, it's comprehensive, images are good- the only issue I can imagine would arise is sourcing. The article only has 23 citations, and the article heavily relies on around 10 of them. Of course, this entirely has to do with the amount of coverage Kalven has. If you can justify the use of so few citations, it's good to go. Let me know when you nominate it, I review at FAC as well. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 23:48, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

@MyCatIsAChonk: Thanks! I'm going to see if I can improve the image quality for the high school yearbook portrait, since I worry that FAC reviewers might bring it up. I've submitted a request for the UChicago Library to give me a higher-quality scan. (I was allowed to use only my phone's scanner app, not a professional scanner, when I inspected the yearbook in-person at the library.) Once that's done, I'll probably be ready for FAC. Edge3 (talk) 03:06, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

@MyCatIsAChonk I've received the higher-quality scan from the UChicago Library, which I've swapped into the article. Is there anything else you think is needed before I take this to FAC? I see that mentorship is suggested; hopefully you'd be willing to help out? Edge3 (talk) 16:32, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

@Edge3, I'd love to help! General disclaimer that I'm no expert in FACs (I only have one) but I have reviewed many and can offer advice there. Some first thoughts:

• I suggest applying the same casing for all citation titles (title case or sentence case) per MOS:CONFORMTITLE- not mandatory, but it looks cleaner (in my opinion) and is more consistent

I've used sentence case in all citations.

• Earwig is showing some pretty high scores for various sources. News21 is ok since you have the CC tag in the citation, but some others have pretty high scores for random sentences- these scores should be reduced.

I've rephrased many of the cases flagged by Earwig.

• Ref 13: How is it via Business Source Complete is there's no link?

I accessed the article through a library subscription that I don't have a usable link for. Others may try to read the article through JSTOR or directly from the ABA Journal, but both links require a subscription. However, since I didn't use JSTOR or directly subscribe to ABA Journal in my research, I don't think I can use those URLs in the citation.

• I suggest you do your own spotcheck before nominating. FAC first-timers are always spotchecked, and especially on a BLP, it'll be very strict and thorough.

Will do! I'll check my sources again before filing the FAC.

• No mention of his polk award?

Good catch! I can't believe I missed it. I've added it in.

Let me know when you send it to FAC- I have no concerns on the prose, it's a very well-written article! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 16:53, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

@MyCatIsAChonk: Thanks for the tips! I've responded above. I'll try to get this to FAC once I finish re-checking the sources. Edge3 (talk) 21:21, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

Date of birth

Just leaving a note here in case people have questions. During the FAC nomination, Kalven's birth year was estimated at 1948, but there was some uncertainty around this estimate. See version at February 23, 2024, footnote 1. After this article was scheduled for TFA, a question was raised at TFA talk to see whether the specific birth year could be determined. Thanks to some additional research, the exact date of birth was found in Kalven's marriage certificate on Ancestry.com, and the year of birth (1948) is now cited accordingly in the article.

As I stated at TFA talk, I am not inclined to include the full date of birth. Under our policy WP:DOB, we provide "dates of birth that have been widely published by reliable sources, or by sources linked to the subject such that it may reasonably be inferred that the subject does not object to the details being made public." In this case, Kalven's date of birth is published in only one primary source (the marriage certificate), and is not mentioned in any secondary source that I'm aware of. Edge3 (talk) 04:07, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Authorship notation in Works list

In the "Works" section, this notation is used: "Kalven, Harry (1989). —— (ed.). " My vision isn't great, and I struggle to read it. Is it two em-dashes together? What does it mean? -- Mikeblas (talk) 16:01, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

The two emdashes refer to the previous person listed when referencing people in citations. But, I do see how this is confusing- I've removed the parameter, since him being the author is enough attribution. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 19:05, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks! But aren't the dashes just the same as WP:IBID? -- Mikeblas (talk) 02:24, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

@MyCatIsAChonk and @Mikeblas: Thanks for your patience, as I was delayed in responding due to international travel. The two em-dashes are consistent with Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lists of works#Template, which states, {{Cite book}} may be used to format bibliography entries; for single-author lists, use |author-mask= to avoid repeating the author's name. I do wonder if we should mention Kalven by name in the second item in "Works", since the first item was authored by his father. Edge3 (talk) 10:41, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

I think that makes sense too. Avoids possible confusion MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 10:56, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

I've just made that change. Edge3 (talk) 11:05, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

"execution style"

The article repeatedly states that Laquan McDonald was shot "execution style", but does not explain (single bullet to the back or side of the head? firing squad in front?). Indeed, the autopsy diagram suggests he died in a hail of bullets from all over--far from a tidy execution. And one person shot him 16 times? This is a glaring discordance. Minturn (talk) 16:26, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

I believe "execution" is taken from the source (this article which uses the word many times). Though @Edge3 can provide more on that MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 10:58, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. The word "execution" comes directly from the source. Edge3 (talk) 11:07, 20 March 2024 (UTC)