# Talk:Official Information Act 1982

This review is transcluded from Talk:Official Information Act 1982/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Naypta (talk · contribs) 09:23, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

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)