Talk:Pregnancy from rape/GA1

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: GregJackP (talk · contribs) 04:41, 26 August 2012 (UTC) Fast fail, the article is currently at AfD. GregJackP Boomer! 04:41, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm thinking that this article is getting closer to GA quality. The only things that I'm seeing right now that immediately catch my attention are that the lead feels disjointed and weak at the moment. I also don't care for the fact that the Aikin's controversy redirect is in the 'see also' section... can we get a little more politically divisive if we try? (The answer to that question of course is yes. This article started off as the worst form of political trash, but it has since turned into an extremely good article.) As the entire political hoopla is dying down, I don't see any more incentive to overly politicize this, so we just need to be vigilant for attempts to use it as a coat rack. Trusilver 17:10, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. The wording of the lead is disjointed. The first sentence should simply state the science and go from there. I also agree about the Akin part. He is only one person that mentioned a comment like his. Casprings (talk) 19:02, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As an uninvolved editor who has reviewed a number of articles for GA, I would wait. The article is not stable, having just (2 days ago) gone through an AfD. It would fast fail under the "recent or on-going" criteria. There is no hurry on this, the article is not going anywhere. Finish the edits, let it get stable, then have another try at it. Repeated fast fails would be looked at in future nominations for good or featured article, and it puts the entire article in a bad light. I would wait at least two weeks, and preferably a month - longer if the article continues to have stability problems. GregJackP Boomer! 20:37, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree. That was properly dumb on my part to put it up. I just thought it was a good article. Waiting and seeing if there are any large edits or debates on the article is important. That said, if the article is stable after a month, is the current version close to a GA article? Casprings (talk) 21:07, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know and I make a practice of not offerring predictions. I would have to go through the review process and check the criteria. All I was indicating was that it was better to wait in this case. GregJackP Boomer! 21:29, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Medical section first?[edit]

User:CMBJ reversed the order of this article with this edit. I feel this should start with the medical information at the top. I'd like to see if there's consensus which supports putting medical info back at the top. Jokestress (talk) 19:03, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree. It is logical for the medical section to come first. Casprings (talk) 21:26, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree as well. I can understand the instinct to present information in historical order, but I think that in this case the current mainstream scientific findings should come first. — Steven G. Johnson (talk) 20:55, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Balkan rape camps[edit]

I remember reading in the media during the Balkan civil wars when the Serbians were operating rape camps, that there was an issue with the Bosnian, Croatian, etc victims deciding what to do with all the children that this had produced. Perhaps something about this could go in this article. Cla68 (talk) 01:06, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]