Talk:Pregnancy from rape/GA2

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Neelix (talk · contribs) 03:38, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   The article has considerable style problems. For example, the lead does not adequately summarize the body of the article. The hatnotes do not indicate subarticles and should therefore be removed; related articles can be linked in the "See also" section. The section headings should be reworded. "Statistics and pregnancy rates" is redundant and could simply be "Statistics". Unless "treatment protocols" is a very common term used in the literature, that section heading should be replaced with "Abortion" or "Abortion and emergency contraception". The word "views" should be removed from most if not all of the section headings; "Law", "Literature", and "Sociobiology" are adequate section headings. I would also recommend against these sections being clumped into an overarching section; these sections are no more related to each other than they are to the other sections of the article.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   There are no major accuracy or verifiability problems, although the copyright violation accusation needs to be addressed.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   All of the major aspects are covered, but some (such as aftermath) are covered very briefly while others (such as anti-abortion groups' claims that rape cannot result in pregnancy) are covered in inordinate detail.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   This article does not present the subject from a neutral point of view. The "Opposition to legal abortion" section is the clearest example of this; the section is inordinately long and consists almost entirely of examples of anti-abortion groups making laughably inaccurate claims about the inability of rape to result in pregnancy. Furthermore, this section should be merged with the "Law" section (sections 3.1 and 3.4 should be merged). Information from this section should not dominate the lead as it currently does. Several other sections are also dominated by US-based information or else information from Western society.

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   There doesn't seem to be an edit war, but the article has been undergoing so much alteration over the past few days that I can't call the article stable.

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   The images currently used in the article are used correctly, but more images would benefit the article.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail: