Talk:Pregnancy from rape/GA3

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Cryptic C62 (talk · contribs) 03:47, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Nice work so far. I applaud you for your efforts to improve Wikipedia's coverage of such a controversial topic. You are a brave man/woman/moose. Overall, the article looks fairly comprehensive and has excellent sourcing. Some spots with dodgy writing, some spots where the America comes through pretty strongly, and some footnotes that need to be tidied up. I'll be adding to the prose list as I comb through the rest of the article.


 * Prose
 * Not sure that I like the section title Pregnancy from rape rates. The phrase "rape-pregnancy rates", which is used later on, might be a better choice.
 * Fixed


 * "Any female capable of ovulation may become pregnant after rape by a fertile male." Considering the amount of controversy surrounding this topic, I think it would be worthwhile to stick a citation (or perhaps even two) immediately after this claim.
 * "In a three-year longitudinal study of 4,000 American women, physician Melisa Holmes found that forced sexual intercourse causes over 32,000 pregnancies in the United States each year." This is somewhat confusing to me. How did 4,000 women have 32,000 pregnancies from rape? Or did Holmes extrapolate? If it is the latter, I suggest cutting the 4,000 figure to avoid confusion.
 * Fixed. She extrapolated.  I put wording in to make that clear.Casprings (talk) 02:49, 12 August 2013 (UTC)


 * The first paragraph of Pregnancy from rape rates is extra America for no reason. Why are four different statistics given for the US when most countries are not mentioned? Worldwide or continental studies would be more useful here.
 * I agree. However, this was one of the big reasons for the pause in this review.  I need to do research to find some.Casprings (talk) 02:51, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
 * "Eleven cited studies suggested a link and three did not. The more severe forms of abuse, such as rape and incest, entail a greater risk [clarification needed]" I think the reason for the clarification tag is this: The first sentence suggests that there is no consensus on the link between early abuse and adolescent pregnancy, but the second sentence seems to confirm that there is such a link.
 * Changed. There is a demonstrated link and I clarified what the link is to.Casprings (talk) 03:25, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
 * "In Nicaragua, between 2000 and 2010, around 172,000 births were recorded for girls under 14, representing around 13% of the 1.3 million births attributed to poverty..." Seems to be missing a comma, and perhaps some clarifying words. Can also be split into two sentences: "In Nicaragua, between 2000 and 2010, around 172,000 births were recorded for girls under 14, representing around 13% of the 1.3 million births during that period. These were attributed to poverty..."
 * Done
 * "psychological warfare in war" Redundant. Cut "in war".
 * Done


 * "Rape has been used as a as a weapon of psychological warfare in war for centuries, to terrorize, humiliate, and undermine the morale of the enemy, and sometimes as an act of ethnic cleansing to produce babies that share the perpetrators' ethnicity." Split this into two sentences to avoid confusion. Ethnic cleansing is not an example of psychological warfare.
 * Done


 * "Forced pregnancy, with the intention of forcing" Does the forced thing forcibly force people to do things that are forced?
 * Fixed


 * "Pregnancy from rape is recognized under the Geneva Convention as a crime against humanity and war crime." (Ref: Britannica.com) WP:Reliable states that "Tertiary sources... should not be used in place of secondary sources for detailed discussion." Here we see why. Pregnancy, a process which results in an additional human, is described here as a crime against humanity. Not the rape. The pregnancy. Also, avoid one-sentence paragraphs.
 * Already Fixed


 * "Rape-pregnancy rates are crucial in evaluating these theories, because a high or low pregnancy rate from rape would determine whether such adaptations are favored or disfavored by natural selection." Cliffhanger. What's the verdict?
 * Fixed by article reorganization


 * The first two paragraphs of Treatment and outcomes are very clearly written by someone in a developed country and about someone in a developed Western country. Any info on what happens in, say, sub-Saharan Africa? Or China?
 * True. This is something I(or someone) needs to return to.


 * "Immediate post-rape treatment protocols call for medical professionals to assess the likelihood that a victim will become pregnant" I think it would be worth clarifying that this is not the only thing that medical professionals do during post-rape treatment. The way it's phrased now, it sounds like a conversation in the emergency room would go like this: "Doctor, this woman was just raped." -- "Quick, check to see if she's pregnant!"
 * Changed wording. I might come back and address this again.Casprings (talk) 01:26, 13 July 2013 (UTC)


 * "High-dose estrogen pills were tried as an experimental treatment after rape in the 1960s" Did it work?
 * Fixed. It worked
 * The organization of this chunk of content is a bit confusing. "These treatments reduced the rate of pregnancy after rate by 84%." It seems highly unlikely that both of the aforementioned treatments would reduce pregnancy rates by the same amount. Or perhaps the Yuzpe regimen is a continuation of the 1960s experiment, but that's not at all clear from the text.
 * "Followup care is also needed, including a gynecological referral, and return visits should occur at two and six weeks after the rape, as well as any occasion when the patient feels she needs to return for emergency care." Wikipedia is not an instruction manual.
 * Agreed. Deleted sentence.


 * "While a woman raped within 48 hours will test negative for pregnancy" Misleading. I assume that this is what you meant to say: "While a woman who has become pregnant during the past 48 hours will test negative for pregnancy"
 * Fixed


 * "12% resulted in miscarriage, and 50% were aborted, and 38% were brought to term" Item, and item, and item. Cut the first "and".
 * Fixed. Plus I think it makes more sense to start out with the biggest stat.


 * "Peer-reviewed studies have reported from 38% of American women to 90% of Peruvian adolescents carrying the pregnancy to term." I didn't notice this before, but two problems here: First, it isn't necessary to include the phrase "peer-reviewed". If it isn't peer-reviewed, it shouldn't be used as a source in the first place. Second, I think it can be made clearer that this study attempted to compare term rates across cultures: "The percentage of rape pregnancies carried to term varies widely across different cultures, ranging from 38% of American women to 90% of Peruvian adolescents."
 * "Some people turn to drugs or alcohol to cope with emotional trauma after a rape; use of these during pregnancy can harm the fetus." Avoid one-sentence paragraphs.
 * Fixed.


 * Regarding the Children of Rape section: Do other countries exist?
 * Something I will have to return to.


 * "and both mother and child face societal ostracism in some societies." Redundant phrasing. Cut "societal".
 * Fixed


 * "A SurveyUSA poll one day after Akin's comments reported that 13% of Missouri adults agreed with Akin's statement and 11% were unsure (±3.8%)." And the other 75%... got eaten by bears?
 * Fixed


 * Footnotes
 * Web sources need access dates.
 * Date format should be consistent through all footnotes.
 * Ref 17: "Logan et al., 2007" needs a publisher
 * Ref 23: "Rosas 1992" This is the only instance of "Rosas" in the article. Did something get deleted from the bibliography?
 * Ref 24: "Treguear & Carro, 1991" Same as the above.
 * Ref 26: "Human sperm competition" Needs page numbers.
 * Ref 44: "Rape: Weapon of War" Format is inconsistent with other citations. Should use citation templates for maximum win. Some of the other refs in this section have the same problem.

Meep. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 03:47, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Query
It has been four weeks since the most recent updates here. What is the status of this review: what is left to be done by the nominator, and what (if anything) by the reviewer? Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:21, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Working now. I will knock out the remanding problems.  Casprings (talk) 02:46, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
 * A few edits were made through August 14, and the author hasn't edited since that day aside from a Village pump post on August 26. Reviewer Cryptic C62 might consider ending this review now that it's over two months old unless it's very close to meeting the criteria; at the very least, a status report would be appreciated. BlueMoonset (talk) 13:54, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I've gone ahead and closed this GAN as unsuccessful. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 02:44, 5 September 2013 (UTC)