251:
858:
wikivoice while noting the sources differ. For example, "Its law banning abortion does not include and explicit exemptions. A British judicial decision on the same law's application in the UK found that abortion was legal to save the life of the mother, however this case has never been brought up in Sierra Leone's courts and so remains untested there. Sources differ on whether abortion is illegal in all circumstances, or whether it is permitted to save the life of a mother. Abortion is covered in the country's medical code of ethics, and there are recorded cases of women in Sierra Leone injuring themselves in order to obtain treatment under the supposed exemption to the law."
384:"Members of parliament debating the ratification said the protocol was an example of Western imperialist morality and a policy against abortion defended Sierra Leone's cultural sovereignty". This inclusion is okay, but it seems unbalanced to include only the views of opposition for a measure that passed. What was the position of the supporters, the ones who won the day?
42:
333:
345:"advocated for abortion reform since 2010". The source refers not to the general idea of reform, but specifically to the Safe Abortion Act. Similarly, it appears PARHA was also formed in 2010 specifically in the context of what became that bill. I suspect this paragraph should be moved to the next subsection, and rewritten to speak of a specific push for reform.
193:, there are several issues that could be covered here, such as methods, safety, motivation, history, and societal views. Statistics is a notably common section in similar articles. Looking at this article, these are actually all covered in some way in the Prevalance section, even if briefly. The article also seems to cover the relevant information present in
923:
904:
884:
864:
749:
723:
697:
679:
657:
640:
619:
573:
520:
503:
457:
439:
420:
403:
373:
351:
323:
916:
I'm still of the view that including per capita rates would be basic statistical information, and there should be information on the attitudes towards/use of contraceptives as that is discussed in the sources as part of maternal health issues and has obvious implications for abortion. The
November
857:
Regarding WP:SOURCESDIFFER, that does not mean the information needs to be presented in a footnote as done now. Furthermore, the wording "abortion might be permitted" makes it sound like some official makes a decision for each case. It is possible to explain the controversy in accurate and neutral
219:
You're right that a "Statistics" section is common, but in the articles I've created, I've chosen to label it as "Prevalence", which also covers methods, safety, motivation, and societal views. Since Sierra Leone is a small country, I doubt there'd be enough coverage of these aspects for separate
215:
Legislation is the aspect of the subject with the most coverage. News outlets appear to have more coverage of the subject than academic journals, which means the sources are weighted towards newsworthy developments in legislation. It seems Sierra Leone has few academic studies on abortion, perhaps
496:
I am not too familiar with the political system at hand, but I would not make much of the
President declaring his cabinet had unanimously backed something. Even if technically true, it seems a basic expression of collective responsibility. Fine in the quote, but no need to repeat it in wikivoice.
871:
That makes sense; added to the lead to specify this. Not including the part about women injuring themselves because, on second glance, the source is stating this fact only as a quote from a biased source, and I have attributed it as such in the body. Also keeping the footnote since I like how it
269:
I'd say I agree that the "Prevalence" section is a bit lumpy. But I can't really think of a better way to structure it, since every paragraph in the section is about a different thing; what would you suggest? I have changed the first sentence to clarify what the 34% is. I will look at this paper
307:
Based on sources, the dispute about legal ramifications does not seem that important. In the "Legislation" section, I cite a letter, which is literally the only source I've found that explicitly mentions a dispute. So the fact that it's disputed isn't a huge part of the article, but the note is
188:
Starting this review. As an initial note, this seems to be relatively uncharted territory, there are no "Abortion in X" GAs or FAs. I would like to ask the nominator if there were any key sources or inspirations regarding the assessment of broadness (GACR3a). As it is, the article seems mostly
432:
The text from about "On 8 December 2015..." onwards is very jumbled timeline wise. All the information about Koroma's position and the reasons behind the change should be before "Parliament returned the unchanged bill...". Most of the public opinion information also seems to fall within this
303:
The lead should be fleshed out a bit more, there is a lot of room to include more information to provide a better overview. I would not include the dispute about legal ramifications in a note in the first paragraph. Instead, perhaps take that information in that note and use it directly as a
414:"the government received a bill", I would distinguish between the government and the parliament. It is also unclear from the source whether the bill was introduced into this legislative session, or held over from a previous session (not sure exactly how that process works in Sierra Leone).
539:
The intervention of
American organisations is probably worth including, but the source used there does really relate to this topic. The The Economist article does mention some direct involvement in the 2015 reversal, and I do know they are involved, but a more dedicated source is needed.
249:
I have no issue with "Prevalance" replacing "Statistics" (I may even prefer it), but I disagree with lumping everything in. Societal factors doesn't really fit under prevalence, and the second and third paragraphs are methods and safety. I'll have a more detailed look in a bit.
254:
gives some data on mortality and rural/urban differences, which can be added to that. Regarding the first sentence in
Prevalance, the 34% is abortions specifically from unintended pregnancies, the overall abortion rate was 27%. Probably worth including both in the article.
566:
I do think the overall rate is important to mention, to provide context to the higher unintended pregnancy rate. It is also worth adding some adjective to indicate the percentage is a modelled estimate. The estimated number per capita feels a reasonable inclusion as well.
877:
Aside from that, the rest of the lead also remains quite truncated, and I do not feel it is a sufficient "summary of most important contents". I would expect for example that the coverage of prevalence be expanded from two short sentences to a much fuller paragraph.
387:
Erdman 2018 only mentions the reasons for opposition. I will check if other sources mention reasons for support. But I reckon sources wouldn't say much of it, since it'd be less noteworthy than the anti-abortion argument that is unique to
612:
The rat poison and sharp object coverage should explicitly contextualise the "force doctors to operate on them" to the grey area exception to abortion laws in the case of a risk to the woman's life, as covered in that source.
742:
for abortion, they are approved for other issues, in this case post-partum care. The limit to distribution then is likely that the private sector is not legally meant to distribute for the purpose of abortion at all.
711:
The source seems doesn't really go into detail about potential reasons. It just says "The law may also be less restrictive in practice," which is the kind of speculation that's expected to be in a study limitations
957:
calls it "one of Sierra Leone’s most credible news media outlets." I'm keeping the statement that public opinion was against the bill, but I've removed it from the lead section so it's not undue weight.
935:
The reworked 2015 section reads well. I'm hesitant to wikivoice that public opinion was against the bill, but that is what the source says, and I don't know the source well enough to evaluate leanings.
770:
Overall the sources are well used. I found various items that can be extracted, but I understand a bit better your explanations on broadness above. Will look around a bit more after changes are made.
631:
630:
It should be noted that the $ 35 to $ 272 range is for care after unsafe abortions. Further, that fact appears taken from the paper I linked above, it may be better to just directly cite that paper (
734:"Private organizations have imported approved abortion drugs but distribution is legally limited" seems a slight misrepresentation of the source. As I read it, the source discusses how drugs that
911:
Seems like I made a mistake interpreting the source that way, since it barely mentions the country. I can't find any sources that do mention U.S.-based groups involved with the 2022 bill.
47:
764:. I'm still keeping the phrasing of "abortion drugs", since the source indicates that these organizations are private providers, and "combi-pack" is quite specifically an abortion drug.
451:
The "The speaker of the house refused to give the bill his assent" sentence should be expanded to explain that this is why the law did not pass despite the veto-proof majority.
917:& Sandall paper (yes, potentially confusing paper name if single authored!) can be used for a generic statement on rural/urban divides on access to maternal healthcare.
126:
898:
The Family Watch
International sentence should be removed absent a more direct source, I had a search and couldn't find anything specific about them and Sierra Leone.
80:
197:. Will have to look at the sources to get a clearer picture of whether these mentions meet GACR3a, but they would be a good place to start for further expansion.
122:
673:
has a mention of prosecution being mostly for cases involving mother death, which should be added to the legal issues paragraph (currently the last paragraph).
52:
107:
70:
974:
839:
808:
394:
286:
238:
156:
604:
The
Devries Aljazeera article contains a statement from President of the Inter-Religious Council Sheikh Abu Bakarr Conteh which feels due for inclusion.
99:
989:
is met with or without the footnotes. Well written, sourced and own work, broad coverage even if information is limited by a lack of sources, reads
475:
Article mentions the
Constitutional Review Committee, but I have not found any sources that say what happened next. Will check sources again to see.
427:
Looks like I misstated what happened—the parliament didn't receive a bill, but it was just a new parliament that now had the power to approve it.
708:
The code of ethics sentence should be expanded a bit further to explain the potential reasons for the odd situation, as covered in the source.
651:
The
November 2018 paper should have two authors. Further, please add page numbers, I can't find the relevant text for the cited information.
717:
Grossman et al. mentions government medical training does not include abortion training, which seems relevant for inclusion in the article.
531:
Purposeful appears to be an at least partially Sierra Leone-based organisation, but I do not see why Fòs
Feminista is due mentioning here.
178:
220:
sections. As for "History", I think that'd be mostly equivalent to the "Proposed legislation" section here; I could change the title.
895:
I don't agree with the Fòs
Feminista inclusion, but am resolved it is beyond the GACR, so keeping it in will not affect this GAN.
970:
835:
804:
691:
Source 28 (Haile et al) is citing source 24 (Sesay et al), so probably worth duplicating the Sesay source to supplement Haile.
282:
234:
150:
75:
954:
823:
and is also on Knowledge's blacklist.... The authors of the paper are legit (they're from Ipas), but alas, it is unusable.
115:
17:
953:
As far as I can tell, Politico SL is a generally reliable source. Its CEO, Umaru Fofana, is a prominent journalist, and
587:
Sources mention sexual violence as a statement of opinion by proponents of the law. I don't think I've seen any sources
446:
Reorganized the part about Koroma, and also added a sub-sub-heading for "Public opinion", which I think reads better.
962:
827:
796:
274:
226:
146:
852:
Ah, it's frustrating when a good paper is in a bad publisher. I suppose we rely on the secondary citations then.
543:
Added a sentence about American involvement in 2015. Will check if sources mention American involvement in 2022.
92:
998:
941:
775:
553:
486:
309:
260:
202:
172:
330:
Also removed the 18 January date, which I misread and which also contradicts the sentence right before it.
820:
534:
I would argue that's also important, since it shows that reactions were not limited only to the country.
216:
because it's a small country where abortion is illegal. Thus, I believe I have covered the main aspects.
990:
342:
As with the lead, I would put the note text directly into the article, as it seems quite important.
994:
937:
787:
771:
607:
It's included. The paragraph starting with "Public opinion in Sierra Leone was against the bill."
549:
482:
256:
198:
168:
584:
Sexual violence should be covered in societal factors as well as in the legislations sections
1002:
980:
945:
845:
814:
779:
557:
490:
292:
264:
244:
206:
182:
160:
367:
The Maputo Protocol paragraph probably belongs in Legislation, a bit out of place here.
986:
872:
looks. Moved a paragraph to the "legislation" section so it clarifies the uncertainty.
189:
focused on legislation. The only other section is Prevalance. Looking at the article
670:
514:
I would remove "a group of" as the source does not confirm it was a specific group.
472:
the bill was shunted to the Constitutional Review Committee. I guess it died there?
757:
194:
761:
469:
634:). That paper reference can also supplement the dilation and cutting sentence.
596:
Contraceptive use and societal issues related to this should be covered here
481:
Will have to look at the 2015 law subsection again after reorganisation.
190:
821:
a predatory publisher that has been known to publish false information
332:
819:
Yeah, so... it turns out the source you shared (Paul et al) is from
664:(As an aside, the phrase "November 2018" briefly confused me, lol.)
738:
be used for abortion have been imported. They are not however
468:
The section is missing the end result. From a quick look it
362:
reform", referring specifically to the law. Good catch.
317:
Please add more specific page numbers for Erdman 2018.
134:
103:
358:
Rereading the Reuters source, I realize that it says "
646:
Specified. Will remember to check that paper later.
985:Well, so long as the lead explains the situation,
993:, stable, and no images to evaluate. Well done.
393:The Planned Parenthood link doesn't seem right.
8:
395:International Planned Parenthood Federation
30:
61:
33:
686:and also said "according to AdvocAid".
758:have imported approved abortion drugs
304:paragraph. It seems quite important.
7:
762:have legally imported abortion drugs
591:stating so, but I can double-check.
24:
397:if the org is not due a redlink.
921:
902:
882:
862:
792:I have addressed your comments.
747:
721:
695:
677:
655:
638:
617:
571:
518:
501:
455:
437:
418:
401:
371:
349:
331:
321:
1003:16:41, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
981:16:17, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
946:05:43, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
846:00:03, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
815:21:22, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
780:09:28, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
558:07:34, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
509:Removed the word "unanimously"
491:06:39, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
293:03:49, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
265:03:33, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
245:18:26, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
207:09:47, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
183:09:47, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
1:
18:Talk:Abortion in Sierra Leone
562:Prevalence and other items
1023:
964:Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧
829:Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧
798:Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧
599:Will look into this later.
276:Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧
228:Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧
212:Thanks for reviewing this!
161:04:24, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
147:Vigilantcosmicpenguin
433:month-long period.
308:necessary because
978:
955:this PDF by USAID
843:
812:
290:
242:
89:
88:
1014:
979:
968:
967:
929:
925:
924:
910:
906:
905:
890:
886:
885:
870:
866:
865:
844:
833:
832:
813:
802:
801:
791:
763:
759:
755:
751:
750:
729:
725:
724:
703:
699:
698:
685:
681:
680:
663:
659:
658:
645:
642:
641:
625:
621:
620:
579:
575:
574:
526:
522:
521:
508:
505:
504:
463:
459:
458:
445:
441:
440:
426:
422:
421:
409:
405:
404:
379:
375:
374:
357:
353:
352:
335:
329:
325:
324:
310:WP:SOURCESDIFFER
291:
280:
279:
243:
232:
231:
139:
130:
111:
43:Copyvio detector
31:
1022:
1021:
1017:
1016:
1015:
1013:
1012:
1011:
961:
959:
922:
920:
903:
901:
883:
881:
863:
861:
826:
824:
795:
793:
785:
748:
746:
722:
720:
696:
694:
678:
676:
656:
654:
639:
637:
618:
616:
572:
570:
519:
517:
502:
500:
456:
454:
438:
436:
419:
417:
402:
400:
372:
370:
350:
348:
322:
320:
273:
271:
225:
223:
120:
97:
91:
85:
57:
29:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
1020:
1018:
1010:
1009:
1008:
1007:
1006:
1005:
991:WP:Impartially
933:
932:
931:
930:
914:
913:
912:
896:
893:
892:
891:
875:
874:
873:
854:
853:
849:
848:
817:
768:
767:
766:
765:
732:
731:
730:
715:
714:
713:
706:
705:
704:
689:
688:
687:
671:Reuters source
667:
666:
665:
649:
648:
647:
628:
627:
626:
610:
609:
608:
602:
601:
600:
594:
593:
592:
582:
581:
580:
547:
546:
545:
544:
537:
536:
535:
529:
528:
527:
512:
511:
510:
479:
478:
477:
476:
466:
465:
464:
449:
448:
447:
430:
429:
428:
412:
411:
410:
391:
390:
389:
382:
381:
380:
365:
364:
363:
343:
340:
339:
338:
315:
314:
313:
300:
299:
298:
297:
296:
295:
221:
217:
213:
187:
140:
87:
86:
84:
83:
78:
73:
67:
64:
63:
59:
58:
56:
55:
53:External links
50:
45:
39:
36:
35:
28:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1019:
1004:
1000:
996:
992:
988:
984:
983:
982:
976:
972:
966:
965:
956:
952:
951:
950:
949:
948:
947:
943:
939:
928:
919:
918:
915:
909:
900:
899:
897:
894:
889:
880:
879:
876:
869:
860:
859:
856:
855:
851:
850:
847:
841:
837:
831:
830:
822:
818:
816:
810:
806:
800:
799:
789:
788:Chipmunkdavis
784:
783:
782:
781:
777:
773:
754:
745:
744:
741:
737:
733:
728:
719:
718:
716:
710:
709:
707:
702:
693:
692:
690:
684:
675:
674:
672:
668:
662:
653:
652:
650:
644:
636:
635:
633:
629:
624:
615:
614:
611:
606:
605:
603:
598:
597:
595:
590:
586:
585:
583:
578:
569:
568:
565:
564:
563:
560:
559:
555:
551:
542:
541:
538:
533:
532:
530:
525:
516:
515:
513:
507:
499:
498:
495:
494:
493:
492:
488:
484:
474:
473:
471:
467:
462:
453:
452:
450:
444:
435:
434:
431:
425:
416:
415:
413:
408:
399:
398:
396:
392:
386:
385:
383:
378:
369:
368:
366:
361:
356:
347:
346:
344:
341:
337:
334:
328:
319:
318:
316:
311:
306:
305:
302:
301:
294:
288:
284:
278:
277:
268:
267:
266:
262:
258:
253:
248:
247:
246:
240:
236:
230:
229:
222:
218:
214:
211:
210:
209:
208:
204:
200:
196:
192:
185:
184:
180:
177:
174:
170:
169:Chipmunkdavis
167:
163:
162:
158:
155:
152:
148:
145:
141:
138:
137:
133:
128:
124:
119:
118:
114:
109:
105:
101:
96:
95:
82:
79:
77:
74:
72:
69:
68:
66:
65:
60:
54:
51:
49:
46:
44:
41:
40:
38:
37:
32:
26:
19:
963:
934:
926:
907:
887:
867:
828:
797:
769:
752:
739:
735:
726:
700:
682:
660:
643:
622:
588:
576:
561:
548:
523:
506:
480:
460:
442:
423:
406:
376:
359:
354:
336:
326:
275:
227:
195:Abortion law
186:
175:
165:
164:
153:
143:
142:
135:
131:
117:Article talk
116:
112:
93:
90:
81:Instructions
632:better link
589:objectively
104:visual edit
756:Rephrased
424:Rephrased.
252:This paper
144:Nominator:
48:Authorship
34:GA toolbox
888:Expanded.
166:Reviewer:
71:Templates
62:Reviewing
27:GA Review
975:contribs
840:contribs
809:contribs
740:approved
712:section.
287:contribs
239:contribs
191:Abortion
179:contribs
157:contribs
76:Criteria
987:WP:LEAD
470:appears
388:Africa.
270:later.
127:history
108:history
94:Article
136:Watch
16:<
999:talk
971:talk
942:talk
927:Done
908:Done
868:Done
836:talk
805:talk
776:talk
753:Done
727:Done
701:Done
683:Done
669:The
661:Done
623:Done
577:Done
554:talk
524:Done
487:talk
461:Done
443:Done
407:Done
377:Done
355:Done
327:Done
283:talk
261:talk
235:talk
203:talk
173:talk
151:talk
123:edit
100:edit
995:CMD
938:CMD
772:CMD
760:to
736:can
550:CMD
483:CMD
360:the
257:CMD
199:CMD
1001:)
973:|
960:—
944:)
838:|
825:—
807:|
794:—
778:)
556:)
489:)
285:|
272:—
263:)
237:|
224:—
205:)
181:)
159:)
125:|
106:|
102:|
997:(
977:)
969:(
940:(
842:)
834:(
811:)
803:(
790::
786:@
774:(
552:(
485:(
312:.
289:)
281:(
259:(
241:)
233:(
201:(
176:·
171:(
154:·
149:(
132:·
129:)
121:(
113:·
110:)
98:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.