# Talk:Abortion in Sierra Leone

This review is transcluded from Talk:Abortion in Sierra Leone/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Nominator: Vigilantcosmicpenguin (talk · contribs) 04:24, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
Reviewer: Chipmunkdavis (talk · contribs) 09:47, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

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 focused on legislation. The only other section is Prevalance. Looking at the article Abortion, 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 Abortion law. 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. CMD (talk) 09:47, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for reviewing this!
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 because it's a small country where abortion is illegal. Thus, I believe I have covered the main aspects.
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 sections. As for "History", I think that'd be mostly equivalent to the "Proposed legislation" section here; I could change the title.
— Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 18:26, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
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. This paper 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. CMD (talk) 03:33, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
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 later. — Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 03:49, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
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 paragraph. It seems quite important.
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 necessary because WP:SOURCESDIFFER.
Please add more specific page numbers for Erdman 2018.
 Done Also removed the 18 January date, which I misread and which also contradicts the sentence right before it.    
As with the lead, I would put the note text directly into the article, as it seems quite important.
"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.
 Done Rereading the Reuters source, I realize that it says "the reform", referring specifically to the law. Good catch.
The Maputo Protocol paragraph probably belongs in Legislation, a bit out of place here.
 Done
"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?
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 Africa.
The Planned Parenthood link doesn't seem right. International Planned Parenthood Federation if the org is not due a redlink.
 Done
"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).
 Rephrased. 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.
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 month-long period.
 Done Reorganized the part about Koroma, and also added a sub-sub-heading for "Public opinion", which I think reads better.
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.
 Done
The section is missing the end result. From a quick look it appears the bill was shunted to the Constitutional Review Committee. I guess it died there?
Article mentions the Constitutional Review Committee, but I have not found any sources that say what happened next. Will check sources again to see.
Will have to look at the 2015 law subsection again after reorganisation. CMD (talk) 06:39, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

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.
  Removed the word "unanimously"
I would remove "a group of" as the source does not confirm it was a specific group.
 Done
Purposeful appears to be an at least partially Sierra Leone-based organisation, but I do not see why Fòs Feminista is due mentioning here.
I would argue that's also important, since it shows that reactions were not limited only to the country.
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.
Added a sentence about American involvement in 2015. Will check if sources mention American involvement in 2022.
CMD (talk) 07:34, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
Prevalence and other items

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.
 Done
Sexual violence should be covered in societal factors as well as in the legislations sections
Sources mention sexual violence as a statement of opinion by proponents of the law. I don't think I've seen any sources objectively stating so, but I can double-check.
Contraceptive use and societal issues related to this should be covered here
Will look into this later.
The Devries Aljazeera article contains a statement from President of the Inter-Religious Council Sheikh Abu Bakarr Conteh which feels due for inclusion.
It's included. The paragraph starting with "Public opinion in Sierra Leone was against the bill."
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.
 Done
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 (better link). That paper reference can also supplement the dilation and cutting sentence.
  Specified. Will remember to check that paper later.
The November 2018 paper should have two authors. Further, please add page numbers, I can't find the relevant text for the cited information.
 Done (As an aside, the phrase "November 2018" briefly confused me, lol.)
The Reuters source 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).
 Done and also said "according to AdvocAid".
Source 28 (Haile et al) is citing source 24 (Sesay et al), so probably worth duplicating the Sesay source to supplement Haile.
 Done
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.
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 section.
Grossman et al. mentions government medical training does not include abortion training, which seems relevant for inclusion in the article.
 Done
"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 can be used for abortion have been imported. They are not however approved 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.
 Done Rephrased have imported approved abortion drugs to have legally imported abortion drugs. 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.
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. CMD (talk) 09:28, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

@Chipmunkdavis: I have addressed your comments. — Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 21:22, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
Yeah, so... it turns out the source you shared (Paul et al) is from a predatory publisher that has been known to publish false information and is also on Wikipedia's blacklist.... The authors of the paper are legit (they're from Ipas), but alas, it is unusable. — Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 00:03, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
Ah, it's frustrating when a good paper is in a bad publisher. I suppose we rely on the secondary citations then.
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 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."
 Done 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 looks. Moved a paragraph to the "legislation" section so it clarifies the uncertainty.
Aside from that, the rest of the lead also remains quite truncated, and I do not feel it is a sufficient "summary of [the article's] most important contents". I would expect for example that the coverage of prevalence be expanded from two short sentences to a much fuller paragraph.
 Expanded.
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.
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.
 Done 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.
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 & 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.
 Done
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. CMD (talk) 05:43, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, Politico SL is a generally reliable source. Its CEO, Umaru Fofana, is a prominent journalist, and this PDF by USAID 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. — Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 16:17, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
Well, so long as the lead explains the situation, WP:LEAD 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 WP:Impartially, stable, and no images to evaluate. Well done. CMD (talk) 16:41, 27 September 2024 (UTC)