GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (
|
visual edit |
history) ·
Article talk (
|
history) ·
Watch
Reviewer: AlanZhu314159265358979 ( talk · contribs) 01:29, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
Very clear and concise grammar, complete with well-organized framework. Consistent Style without any very big issues.
All sources consistent and contains all information with some quotes and with a clearly well dispersed reference notations. Majority of sources credible and up-to-date. Sources well dispersed throughout the entirety of the article, which is extremely clearly.
Covers everything between methods to society to history. This shows basically everything to do with the topic of abortion and also clear. A little bit of unnecessary detail but mostly basically completely summarized.
No real bias, so clear on this. Exceeds expectations on the ability to be no biased even on a widely opinionated topic like abortion.
Possible edit war, however reasons are very valid for changing article and thus as of current may be accepted as a GA Article.
Images well dispersed with sources and copyright status given clearly. Images well informed and helpful.
I've not read this article from end-to-end, but the "abortion debate" section is pretty weak. It doesn't cite a single source (neither do some other sections), and it's got a few highly vacuous claims. "An individual's position concerning the complex ethical, moral, philosophical, biological, and legal issues which surround abortion is often related to his or her value system." ... "Religious ethics also has an influence both on personal opinion and on the greater debate over abortion.". I appreciate that in a top-level article like this you can't enter into the intricacies of the various ethical/legal/religious debates, but the issues could be framed a little better, and some sources could be given. J Milburn ( talk) 14:48, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (
|
visual edit |
history) ·
Article talk (
|
history) ·
Watch
Reviewer: AlanZhu314159265358979 ( talk · contribs) 01:29, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
Very clear and concise grammar, complete with well-organized framework. Consistent Style without any very big issues.
All sources consistent and contains all information with some quotes and with a clearly well dispersed reference notations. Majority of sources credible and up-to-date. Sources well dispersed throughout the entirety of the article, which is extremely clearly.
Covers everything between methods to society to history. This shows basically everything to do with the topic of abortion and also clear. A little bit of unnecessary detail but mostly basically completely summarized.
No real bias, so clear on this. Exceeds expectations on the ability to be no biased even on a widely opinionated topic like abortion.
Possible edit war, however reasons are very valid for changing article and thus as of current may be accepted as a GA Article.
Images well dispersed with sources and copyright status given clearly. Images well informed and helpful.
I've not read this article from end-to-end, but the "abortion debate" section is pretty weak. It doesn't cite a single source (neither do some other sections), and it's got a few highly vacuous claims. "An individual's position concerning the complex ethical, moral, philosophical, biological, and legal issues which surround abortion is often related to his or her value system." ... "Religious ethics also has an influence both on personal opinion and on the greater debate over abortion.". I appreciate that in a top-level article like this you can't enter into the intricacies of the various ethical/legal/religious debates, but the issues could be framed a little better, and some sources could be given. J Milburn ( talk) 14:48, 1 February 2015 (UTC)