Jump to content

Talk:Abortion in Senegal/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

[edit]

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.


GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

Nominator: Vigilantcosmicpenguin (talk · contribs) 04:48, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Jolielover (talk · contribs) 10:52, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Will review this jolielover♥talk 10:52, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable, as shown by a source spot-check.
    a (reference section): b (inline citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
    Spot check
  • Reference 1 ([1]) verifies that the criminal code prohibits abortion
  • Reference 3 ([2]) verifies that Sall would consider legalizing abortion in cases of rape and incest
  • Reference 36 ([3]) verifies most providers being in the Dakar region
  • Reference 51 ([4]) verifies the cost of abortion services in 2016
  • Reference 55 ([5]) verifies statement about orphanages
  • Reference 6 ([6]) verifies abortion being opposed due to religion
  • Reference 43 ([7]) verifies law not classifying incest as rape
  • Reference 22 ([8]) verifies The Task Force
  • Reference 34 ([9]) verifies maternal mortality.

Comments: Please provide a specific page number for some statements (I know a page range is stated, but a specific page number helps far more). You can use for this.

  1. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  2. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  3. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  4. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  5. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:

Amazing article, very well cited. My only feedback is to add specific page numbers for some citations for increased accessibility. Almost at GA status! jolielover♥talk 10:39, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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.