Talk:Abortion in Liberia/GA1

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.

---

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

Nominator: Vigilantcosmicpenguin (talk · contribs) 19:24, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer: Grnrchst (talk · contribs) 15:35, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

I will be taking this on for review, as part of both the GAN backlog drive and Women in Green's 7th edit-a-thon. Thank you for nominating this, I look forward to learning more about this subject. --Grnrchst (talk) 15:35, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Comments

Legislation

• Spotcheck: [2] Verified.
• Spotcheck: [3] Verified, although I can assume "reasons of unlawful intercourse" includes both rape and incest?
• Is there any background information available as to why and how abortion was legalised in 1976? Would be interesting to know.
  • I will look for sources later. You're right that this should probably be included.
• Spotcheck: [1] Verified.
• Spotcheck: [4] Verified.

Proposed amendment (2022)

• Last update in this section was from February 2024. Has there been any news on the progress of this amendment since then? If there has been, it should be added, so do check around to find out. If there haven't been updates, then I will expect this to be updated promptly once further news comes out.
  • February 2024 was the most recent update I could find. A Google search does not turn up any significant updates.
• Spotcheck: [5] Verified.
• Consider linking to Socioeconomic status for "socioeconomic reasons".
  •  Done
• Spotcheck: [1] Verified.
• Spotcheck: [6] Verified Tulay's comments, but:
  • "It would lower the limit for legal abortions to the eighteenth week of pregnancy. This doesn't appear to be correct, according to the source: "The current Liberian law, dating back to 1976, allows mothers or pregnant women to undergo abortion at will within the first 16 weeks of pregnancy. In contrast, the proposed law suggests restricting abortions to cases where the pregnancy poses a threat to the woman’s life, allowing the procedure only up to 14 weeks."
  •  Fixed I think "eighteen" was just a flub on my part.
• "the law will be one of the most liberal in Africa" I feel like this needs attribution, as it's a potentially controversial assertion, especially if the gestational limit is being lowered. At least according to our own article on abortion law, it seems like a few other African states have more liberal abortion laws than even the proposed Liberian amendment.
  • Rather than attribute the quote, I added detail about the source's claim.
• Consider linking to Abortion in Africa.
  •  Done I hadn't created that article until after I created this one. :)
• Seems like there's contradictory information in the sources about the gestational period, I've seen several different limits listed. Do we know which is correct?
  • The current law sets a gestational limit of 24 weeks. I feel confident saying this is true, as it's what the academic sources say; I'm assuming the news sources are more prone to error.
• Spotcheck: [8] Verified.
• "a joint committee began debating it" Clarify that "it" is referring to the bill.
  •  Done
• Spotcheck: [1] Verified.
• Is Chea still the chair of the senate health committee? For posterity, it might be worth changing this to simply say "chair [...]" rather than "who is chair [...]"
  •  Done Changed to who was chair [...], rather than just chair [...], which would create Oxford comma confusion.
• Spotcheck: [7][5] I may have misread something, but it seems like these articles were saying it passed the house but hadn't yet passed through the Senate?
  •  Done You're right; I should've noticed that. Of course it hasn't passed both houses; that'd make it law.
• Spotcheck: [9] Verified.
• Spotcheck: [10] Verified.
• "The Coalition for Democratic Change opposes the proposal" Why do they oppose the bill? What is this party's status in the Senate (i.e. governing/opposition)?
  •  Done
• Spotcheck: [11] Verified.
• Spotcheck: [1] Verified.
• This quote from anonymous senators is quite long and could do with summarising.
  • I think the quote should be quoted directly since it makes multiple claims, which I don't want to misrepresent.
• Spotcheck: [10] Verified.
• Spotcheck: [12] Verified.
• Spotcheck: [7] Verified.
• Perhaps it's worth moving the detail about the CDC's opposition to the bill down into this paragraph about the opponents of legalisation?
  • I think it fits better with the paragraph about the legislative process since it's about a party in the Senate.
• "Many traditional and religious leaders [...]" What are "traditional leaders" in this case?
  • Added wikilink to tribal chief. (The article doesn't elaborate on what "traditional leaders", but I assume that's the primary meaning of the term.)
• Spotcheck: [10] Verified.
• Spotcheck: [1] Verified.
• Spotcheck: [7] Verified.
• Spotcheck: [6] Source mentions his "Campaign to Stop Abortion in Liberia", not a website.
  •  Done Huh, I don't know which source I got the website from. Changed.
• Spotcheck: [13] Verified.
• Might be worth introducing the Swedish embassy's support for legalisation before the criticism of it, as otherwise it seems a bit out of left field as to why the Swedish embassy specifically is being criticised.
  •  Done Specified the Swedish embassy's actions. I won't go into too much detail since sources only mention it after the criticism.
• Spotcheck: [7][14][15] Verified two out of three sources, couldn't access [14].
• We should probably include Chris Smith's party affiliation here, for clarity's sake.
  •  Done
• Spotcheck: [16] Verified.
• Is there any evidence that the Biden administration was involved in any of this?
  • No.

Prevalence

• Spotcheck: [10] Verified.
• Spotcheck: [18] Verified.
• Spotcheck: [19] Verified.
• Spotcheck: [20] Verified.
• Spotcheck: [21] Verified.
• Might be worth clarifying that septic abortions are a common cause of tetanus in Liberia, per the source.
  • I think that'd go without saying, since that's what the article is about.
• Spotcheck: [22] Verified.
• Spotcheck: [7] Verified.
• Might be worth merging the paragraph about self-induced abortions into the paragraph above it, as it's quite a short paragraph otherwise.
  •  Done
• Spotcheck: [23] Verified.
• Might be worth merging the paragraph about the lack of government-supported programmes into the following one. It looks a bit odd by itself, as it's quite a short paragraph.
  •  Done
• Spotcheck: [19] Verified.
• Spotcheck: [23] Verified.
• Spotcheck: [24] Verified.

Lead

• I think this could work as a single paragraph, there's no need to break it up into three short paragraphs.
  • Expanded the lead a bit.
• No need to include a citation to the Liberian Observer here, as this information is already covered by a citation in the body. See MOS:CITELEAD.
  •  Done Looks like someone else added that citation. Removed.

Checklist

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

---

On the whole, this is a fabulously-written article and I learnt a lot reading it. There's a few issues that I think are keeping it back from a quick-pass, which I have mentioned above.

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   A couple minor cases where extra clarification could be provided.

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

   Minor issues with the manual of style, mostly concerning the lead section.

2. Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   All references are well-presented as expected.

   B. 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 sources are reliable and properly cited inline.

   C. It contains no original research:

   Found a couple cases where information diverges slightly from cited sources.

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

   No issues with plagiarism or copyvios found, earwig only flags a long quote,[1] which could be addressed by summarising.

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   All main topics that I'd expect to be have been addressed, although pending updates as last news included is from February 2024, over half a year ago.

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

   Very focused, with no deviations from the topic.

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

   No issues with POV, opinions for and against are presented with due weight and fair balance.

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

   Only reversion was a self-revert, no major changes since GA nomination.

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

   No images are used. Consider browsing the wikicommons category on Liberia for potentially relevant images.

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   Holding for now, until comments are addressed. Feel free to ping me when you feel you have seen to everything, or if you have any further questions. Nice work on this article. :) --Grnrchst (talk) 15:35, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

   I have addressed most of the comments. As for the images: I can find no free images that depict Varfee Tulay or Augustine Chea, or anything directly related to abortion in Liberia. — Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 18:53, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

   @Vigilantcosmicpenguin: Thank you for seeing to everything so promptly and thoroughly! I'll leave a bit more time for you to research into reasons for the 1976 legal change. Ping me if you find anything or not. --Grnrchst (talk) 10:03, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

   @Grnrchst: I have added a sentence about the penal code amendment. As it was just one section of a change to the penal code, it doesn't seem like there was any specific background to the abortion law. — Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 10:15, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

   Ok, fair enough. Thanks for looking into this, I'm happy to pass the review now. Do keep an eye out for any updates that will need adding to the article. Nice work on this! --Grnrchst (talk) 10:29, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

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.