Talk:Abortion/GA1
GA Review
[edit]| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: AlanZhu314159265358979 (talk · contribs) 01:29, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
Well-Written
[edit]Very clear and concise grammar, complete with well-organized framework. Consistent Style without any very big issues.
Verifiable
[edit]All sources consistent and contains all information with some quotes and with a clearly well dispersed reference notations. Majority of sources credible and up-to-date. Sources well dispersed throughout the entirety of the article, which is extremely clearly.
Broad
[edit]Covers everything between methods to society to history. This shows basically everything to do with the topic of abortion and also clear. A little bit of unnecessary detail but mostly basically completely summarized.
Neutral
[edit]No real bias, so clear on this. Exceeds expectations on the ability to be no biased even on a widely opinionated topic like abortion.
Stability
[edit]Possible edit war, however reasons are very valid for changing article and thus as of current may be accepted as a GA Article.
Images
[edit]Images well dispersed with sources and copyright status given clearly. Images well informed and helpful.
- Binksternet comments
- This article must fail GA because of the multiple "citation needed" tags, and the frequent edit warring which cannot be wished away. The only chance this article had of reaching GA is if there was time devoted to fixing the problems, and if the edit warring stopped. The review here is good intentioned but grossly inadequate. Binksternet (talk) 06:04, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
- Citations fixed in less than 30mins. The edit warring will never stop, but recent history barely qualifies... it is a good faith very slow content dispute the reviewer acknowledged. Apart from the removal of a section (that few seem to miss in its current form) it barely registers. The only way I see the GA not passing easily, is if the lack of an "Art" section makes the article incomplete. IMO more of a FA requirement. - RoyBoy 17:46, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
- Just chiming in, an art section for abortion? I hope that is not a requirement for this article. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 23:13, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
- I also just scanned through the article and noticed many paragraphs still unsourced. Given that abortion is a common topic, I think that it can be fixed. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 23:17, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
- I took a look to check those unsourced paragraphs and found they are mostly uncontroversial definitions of words ("an abortion performed without the woman's consent is considered feticide") or summaries of more specific topics. Maybe FA will require sources for these, but they aren't strictly necessary because the sources can be found at more detailed articles. Shii (tock) 21:56, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
- I always thought everything in a GA must be cited. Also, definitions like festicide are not necessarily common knowledge (I had never even heard of the term festicide until you brought it up). It shouldn't be too hard to fix, but I would probably do it. I may do it myself if time permits me. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 23:56, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
- I took a look to check those unsourced paragraphs and found they are mostly uncontroversial definitions of words ("an abortion performed without the woman's consent is considered feticide") or summaries of more specific topics. Maybe FA will require sources for these, but they aren't strictly necessary because the sources can be found at more detailed articles. Shii (tock) 21:56, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
- Citations fixed in less than 30mins. The edit warring will never stop, but recent history barely qualifies... it is a good faith very slow content dispute the reviewer acknowledged. Apart from the removal of a section (that few seem to miss in its current form) it barely registers. The only way I see the GA not passing easily, is if the lack of an "Art" section makes the article incomplete. IMO more of a FA requirement. - RoyBoy 17:46, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
I've not read this article from end-to-end, but the "abortion debate" section is pretty weak. It doesn't cite a single source (neither do some other sections), and it's got a few highly vacuous claims. "An individual's position concerning the complex ethical, moral, philosophical, biological, and legal issues which surround abortion is often related to his or her value system." ... "Religious ethics also has an influence both on personal opinion and on the greater debate over abortion.". I appreciate that in a top-level article like this you can't enter into the intricacies of the various ethical/legal/religious debates, but the issues could be framed a little better, and some sources could be given. J Milburn (talk) 14:48, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
- Not listed. I'm failing this GAN for the reasons discussed above, and because not enough improvement was made. Binksternet (talk) 02:24, 21 February 2015 (UTC)