Wikipedia:Peer review/Female genital mutilation/archive2

Female genital mutilation
This peer review discussion has been closed. I'm listing this for peer review because I'm considering nominating it for FAC at some point. I would love to hear from reviewers with FAC experience as to how far this is from being ready. Please don't be polite! I'd much rather hear about problems at this stage. Particular criticisms would be helpful, as would an overall impression.
 * Previous peer review

I'm pinging some editors who said they might be willing (or who I hope are willing) to read some of it:, , , ,

If you're not able to, don't worry, or if you can, but it will take time, that's fine too. There's no rush, and any feedback at all (even if only about one point or one section) would be much appreciated. Many thanks! SlimVirgin (talk) 02:25, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Starting with the trivia, the toolserver links in the toolbox won't work. I ran the "disambig links" tool a month ago and there were no problems. However, if that tool starts working again, it did report one issue due to some technical weirdness that can be seen in this VPT archive (it's a false report which can be ignored). Johnuniq (talk) 03:17, 6 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks, John, and thanks too for the link to that discussion. The external links and alt text tools seem to be working, but not the rest. SlimVirgin (talk) 03:31, 6 September 2014 (UTC)


 * I will definitely get to this. I'm very busy for the next couple of days, and I'm off to Sweden on Saturday for a week, but I'll try and make a reasonable start before I go. Brianboulton (talk) 08:46, 8 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Hi, that's very kind of you, thank you. Remember that there's no rush for this, so if you prefer to wait until you're back, that would be fine. I hope you have a lovely time in Sweden! SlimVirgin (talk) 03:52, 9 September 2014 (UTC)


 * I'll definitely get to it as well but not until later in the week. From the few peeks I've taken, it's looking like it's in good shape. Victoria (tk) 19:36, 9 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks, . Any feedback at all would be great. SlimVirgin (talk) 16:36, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Brianboulton
First, I think that this is a very important article, and you should be congratulated on the efforts you have made to bring it to its present state. As you know, I first encountered it at a much earlier stage in its development. It did not make easy or pleasant reading then, nor does it now, but that doesn't alter the fact that this is great work. I have very little to say about the content, which is remorselessly clear. My comments on the prose are mainly nitpicks and presentational issues. I have some further points about footnotes and referencing.
 * Lead
 * "There has been an international effort since the 1970s...": pluralise for consistency later in sentence, thus: "There have been international efforts..." etc


 * Done. SlimVirgin (talk) 14:15, 20 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Local terms
 * "Infibulation is known as pharaonic purification in Sudan (tahur faraowniya) – a reference to the Egyptian Pharaohs – but as Sudanese circumcision in Egypt." For the sake of prose consistenct the first part of the sentence needs to be flipped: ""Infibulation is known as tahur faraowniya (pharaonic purification) in Sudan...". I'm not sure you need to emphasis the connection with the pharaohs, which is pretty self-evident, and  "Sudanese circumcision" should be in quotes.


 * I've removed the pharaohs, flipped the order, and added quotation marks. SlimVirgin (talk) 14:15, 20 September 2014 (UTC)


 * English
 * "Anthropologist Rose Oldfield Hayes..." and "Austrian-American researcher Fran Hosken" – the normal British English form (except in tabloids) is to precede with the, e.g. "The anthropolgist Rose Oldfield Hayes..." etc. There are other examples in the text.


 * I think I'd prefer to leave that. The article is written in Canadian English (we had to choose something for consistency, and there were at least two editors in Canada working on the page at the time). SlimVirgin (talk) 14:15, 20 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete comma after "influential"


 * Done. SlimVirgin (talk) 14:15, 20 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Circumcisers, methods, ages
 * The wording "Medical personnel are usually not involved..." seems contradicted if, in Egypt and others of the main practising countries, 77% of procedures are carried out by medical personnel.


 * It currently says: "Medical personnel are usually not involved, although in some countries, particularly Egypt, Sudan and Kenya, FGM is more likely to be carried out by health professionals."


 * Link The Lancet


 * Done. SlimVirgin (talk) 14:15, 20 September 2014 (UTC)


 * "Given the unusual involvement of physicians in FGM in that country..." Replace "unusual" with "untypically high"?


 * I changed this to "higher-than-usual involvement," but I'll try to think of something better. SlimVirgin (talk) 14:15, 20 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Classification
 * It is slightly confusing to have the subheading "WHO Types I and II" followed by a paragraph describing the UNICEF categories. What is the relationship between the UNICEF and WHO categories?


 * I've moved that paragraph into the Overview section, so the "WHO Types I and II" section discusses only those types. SlimVirgin (talk) 14:15, 20 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Complications
 * Some of the  terms used in the section are incomprehensible to the general reader, and are not determinable from context, e.g. "fistula", "sequelae" ("consequences"?), "neuroma formation", etc


 * I've linked sequelae, fistula and neuroma. That section was written by a gynaecologist, so I'd prefer not to change it. SlimVirgin (talk) 14:15, 20 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Prevelance
 * The layout of the section divorces the columnar table from the text, with substantial intervening white space. It would be a good idea to give the table a specific bolded heading; alternatively, the map showing FGM concentration by colour could be relocated to a less cluttered part of the article.


 * I've changed the layout. SlimVirgin (talk) 14:15, 20 September 2014 (UTC)


 * "Nigeria has the highest number of women and girls who have experienced FGM, around one-quarter of the global number.[74] Around one in five cases is in Egypt.[75]" I'm not convinced that the information, put in this way, is necesary, and in the case of Nigeria, it is somewhat misleading. It gives the idea that Nigeria is a hotbed of FGM, but proportionately the number of Nigerian women who have undergone FGM is in the "moderately low" column. It's just that Nigeria has by far the largers population in Africa, so a low proportion still means a high absolute number.


 * I've added the population of Nigeria. SlimVirgin (talk) 14:15, 20 September 2014 (UTC)


 * I don't see much purpose in the upper of the two Africa maps. What information is it providing that is not otherwise given? Images and charts are quite numerous in the article.


 * I've removed the upper one. SlimVirgin (talk) 14:15, 20 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Reasons - overview
 * Am I understanding correctly – footbinding "controlled sexual access to women" and "enhanced male sexual pleasure"? Seems dubious.


 * That now says: "Mackie compares FGM to footbinding, which was outlawed in China in 1911. Like FGM, footbinding was an ethnic marker carried out on young girls, nearly universal where practised, and tied to ideas about honour, appropriate marriage, health, fertility and aesthetics. It was also supported by the women themselves." SlimVirgin (talk) 14:15, 20 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Sorry to harp on the theme of image relevance, but what does the Dogon cave painting contribute to the article? The image page itself gives no commentary explaining how the paintings relate to circumcision, and I'm wondering what the pictures are supposed to represent.


 * I've removed it. SlimVirgin (talk) 14:15, 20 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Support from women
 * Why have a redlink on "belief trap" when you then explain what it means? (And is a WP articlee on this subject at all likely?)


 * I didn't add that, but I did remove it. SlimVirgin (talk) 14:15, 20 September 2014 (UTC)


 * "The cost of dissent with FGM is failure to have descendants, because uncut women might not find husbands" – that is a possible cost of dissent, but not absolute; women may not find husbands. I would replace "is failure" with "may be failure"


 * Done. SlimVirgin (talk) 14:15, 20 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Why the American spelling of "programs" when otherwise British spellings have been used?


 * It's Canadian spelling, which can be program or programme, so I've plumped for the latter. SlimVirgin (talk) 14:15, 20 September 2014 (UTC)


 * "which provides a critical mass of support for collective abandonment" – suggest change "which provides" to "aiming to provide" or possibly "thus providing"; the present format is too definitive.


 * Changed to "which provides the critical mass of support needed for collective abandonment." SlimVirgin (talk) 14:15, 20 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Antiquity
 * I'm not sure how the hieroglyph relates to the text. What is it representing?


 * This now says: "Historian Mary Knight writes that there may be a reference to an uncircumcised girl ('m't), written in hieroglyphs in what is known as Spell 1117 of the Coffin Texts (translation right, image below):" SlimVirgin (talk) 14:15, 20 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Europe and the United States
 * The insertion "controversially so because of his experimental surgery on slaves" reads as editorial opinion, and needs to be more directly related to a source.


 * Removed. SlimVirgin (talk) 14:15, 20 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Colonial opposition in Kenya
 * I would modify the second sentence  to read: "The practice was known by the Kikuyu, Kenya's main ethnic group, as irua for both girls and boys, and involved excision (Type II) for girls and removal of the foreskin for boys." It might be logical to make the first sentence of the first paragraph the opening sentence of the third Paragraph, as the sentence is somewhat isolated where it is now.


 * I don't think I follow this. SlimVirgin (talk) 14:15, 20 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Growth of opposition
 * Nitpick, but compare "In 1975 the American social scientist Rose Oldfield Hayes..." with "In 1979 Austrian-American feminist Fran Hosken..." Also, why give Hosken's dates? You have not generally done so with cited experts.


 * Dates have been removed. SlimVirgin (talk) 14:15, 20 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Could we have some comment on the effectiveness or otherwise of the legal steps taken to ban or restrict FGM in the 22 out of 27 African countries that had passed laws by 2013? The impression I have from the article is that the practice remains widespread. It is, for example, a little alarming to read that Egypt banned the  practice in 2008, yet "The first criminal charges under the new law were laid in 2014."


 * That would be a lot of work, and it's hard to find meaningful figures. France is the only country I can find that is rigorously prosecuting. (It was made illegal in the UK in 1985, but the first charges were brought there in 2014.) UNFPA and UNICEF established a programme in 2007 with the aim of seeing a 40 percent reduction in prevalence by 2013 in a certain number of countries. They're training people in 15 countries in how to enforce the laws. Only seven of the 15 countries reported any enforcement in 2012. SlimVirgin (talk) 14:15, 20 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Law in non-practising countries
 * Make it clear that the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act, and the later Transport for Female Genital Mutilation Act, are US laws and only apply there. This could be done simply by merging the final two paragraphs.


 * I've joined those two paragraphs. SlimVirgin (talk) 14:15, 20 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Comparison with other procedures
 * "Several commentators argue..." – this formulation often gives rise to, so is maybe best avoided by modest rephrasing.


 * Will rephrase. SlimVirgin (talk) 14:15, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Aside from prose nitpickings, I have concerns about the nature and extent of the footnotes. In their present form it is quite hard to review these in the normal manner.
 * Why is it necessary, on so many occasions, to include lengthy quotations from the cited sources, especially when the citation incorporates a link to the source? The effect is to swell the article's wikitext to a massive 157kb – yet the wordcount is only 6,800. I know it's sometimes necessary to elaborate a citation,  but the present arrangement seems to be seriously excessive.
 * I would like to see the "References" subdivided between books and papers, to get a better handle on the scope of sources.
 * MOS may not specifically require it, but I believe that at featured level, source books information should include publisher location and (where appropriate) ISBN


 * The footnotes were needed because a couple of editors (one in particular) were questioning even the most obvious points. I'll look to see which ones can be safely removed. Regarding the References section, the article now has a Notes section only, with full citation on first reference and a short ref thereafter, which is easier to maintain. SlimVirgin (talk) 14:15, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

I shall watch the future progress of this article with great interest. Brianboulton (talk) 21:41, 11 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Hi, thank you, this is extremely helpful. I'm about to go offline, but I'll read through your comments carefully tomorrow and start applying some fixes. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:23, 12 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Thank you for taking the time to read and review, . It's very much appreciated. SlimVirgin (talk) 14:15, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Johnuniq

 * Support from women
 * Text "Attitudes may have changed somewhat since then" is too weasely. Perhaps replace with facts. Some facts for Sudan from UNICEF 2013 that might be used are:
 * p. 54: 53% of women aged 15–49 and who have heard about FGM/C think it should stop (have to read number off graph; 53% is confirmed on pdf p. 3).
 * p. 55: 42% of women aged 15–49 and who have heard about FGM/C think it should continue.
 * p. 77: 49% of women aged 15–49 and who have been cut think it should stop.
 * p. 90, Fig 8.1A: Percentages of women aged 15–49 and who have heard about FGM/C and think it should continue: 79% (1989–1990), 51% (2006), 48% (2010).


 * I've retained "Attitudes have changed somewhat since then," followed by some figures, so it now says: "According to UNICEF in 2013, 79 percent of women aged 15–49 in Sudan in 1989–1990 said the practice should continue, compared to 48 percent in 2010. Over 50 percent of women in Mali, Guinea, Sierra Leone, Somalia, Gambia and Egypt support FGM's continuance, but elsewhere in Africa, Iraq and Yemen, most say it should end or are unsure." SlimVirgin (talk) 14:24, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
 * That's good. Johnuniq (talk) 11:29, 21 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Antiquity
 * I have not read much of the relevant source yet, but I think Mackie's explanation regarding how FGM may have become an established practice is very interesting and worth more than the brief and unclear "practice associated with shameful female slavery came to stand for honor." Mackie's views on footbinding are also much more plausible than the brief account which was accurately described as dubious by Brianboulton above.


 * See above for what the footbinding reference now says. Mackie speculates in different ways in several articles. It would be quite a bit of extra work to write it up (it would involve checking earlier texts against the latest version to see how it had developed). If you'd like to put something together, I'd have no objection in principle, but it's not something I want to do myself. Bear in mind how speculative it is. SlimVirgin (talk) 14:24, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree that conjectures on the origins of FGM are inherently speculative and I doubt it would be worth polishing them for the article. However, I may get around to studying what Mackie says and offer a suggestion for some brief text. The text currenty in the article is fine. Johnuniq (talk) 11:29, 21 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Europe and the United States
 * Text "father of gynaecology" is unfortunate as "father of" has been much abused for boosterism on Wikipedia. It is sourced in J. Marion Sims and the point is not important, but it stood out for me.


 * I've removed it. SlimVirgin (talk) 14:24, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks—a bit unfortunate since this is a case where "father of" may be justified, but it's cleaner to remove it. Johnuniq (talk) 11:29, 21 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Tolerance versus human rights
 * The main heading is "Criticism of opposition" so sentences should start by criticizing opposition to FGM. Perhaps the following could be reversed so anthropologists make their criticism first: "Anthropologists have been criticized...; they, in turn, accuse...".


 * Done. SlimVirgin (talk) 14:24, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Good. Johnuniq (talk) 11:29, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Re the extent of the footnotes mentioned by Brianboulton: This topic has been the subject of considerable controversy at Wikipedia, with editors challenging text and wanting to promote certain views. In addition, the material is of significant interest to many readers. Extensive footnotes are extremely helpful for both these situations.


 * I agree that some at least will continue to be helpful. SlimVirgin (talk) 14:24, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Overall, an excellent article built with a staggering amount of effort. I hope to think about what might be done with Mackie's reasoning later. Johnuniq (talk) 02:41, 12 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Hi John, thank you for this. I'll start sorting these out with the next round of edits. SlimVirgin (talk) 19:42, 12 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Many thanks again,, for the review. SlimVirgin (talk) 14:24, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks SV—a sensational effort! Johnuniq (talk) 11:29, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Victoriaearle
I have to echo the comments above: this is a very important article and shows an incredible amount of fortitude. I have very few comments, and some are preferences only. ""FGM is practised by ethnic groups in 27 countries in sub-Saharan and north-east Africa, in Yemen and Iraqi Kurdistan, and to a lesser extent elsewhere in Asia and within immigrant communities around the world.[8]""
 * Lead
 * These two sentences seem quite similar, but one is in the first para and the other in the third. Maybe they can be merged or somehow brought together?

""Over 125 million women and girls have experienced FGM in Africa, Yemen and Iraqi Kurdistan; half of them live in Egypt and Ethiopia.[13]""


 * If the two sentences above are reorganized then maybe also move this phrase: "Typically carried out by a traditional circumciser with a blade or razor, with or without anaesthesia," and put it with the para beginning "The procedures differ"?


 * I'm going to look again at the way this is introduced. It used to say (writing from memory) 27 countries in Africa and to a lesser extent in the Middle East and elsewhere in Asia, but then someone objected that it emphasized Africa too much. So I rewrote it to be closer to UNICEF, but now it's repetitive (Iraq and Yemen repeated), so I may revert to what we had before. SlimVirgin (talk) 14:59, 20 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Terminology
 * I'm tempted to suggest flipping the sections here so that English goes first, only because it's a more general overview, and then move into the more specific local terms. Also, a few terms are sprinkled throughout - should those go here too?
 * Link infibulation on first occurrence here


 * Both done. The other terms sprinkled throughout the article: now sure what they are. Will look. SlimVirgin (talk) 14:59, 20 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Type III
 * "A 2–5 mm-hole is left for the passage of urine and menstrual blood" >> I'd suggest adding the word "single" in front of "2-5 mm hole". Only because I was confused reading the section about the difficulty in obtaining a clean urine samples, and I had to scroll back up. The full extent of the procedure hadn't quite sunk in, I suppose.
 * I think it has to be emphasized here that the vulva closes during healing, to put in perspective the later explanations about how and when the vulva is opened.


 * Both done. SlimVirgin (talk) 14:59, 20 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Complications
 * I think this sentence is a little long and could do with some tightening (can't think though how to fix it!):
 * "It has immediate, short-term and late complications, which depend on several factors: the type of FGM; the conditions in which the procedure took place and whether the practitioner had medical training; whether unsterilized or surgical single-use instruments were used; whether surgical thread was used instead of agave or acacia thorns; the availability of antibiotics; how small a hole was left for the passage of urine and menstrual blood; and whether the procedure was performed more than once (for example, to close an opening regarded as too wide or re-open one too small).[10]"


 * I split it in two. This is one of the paragraphs written by the gynaecologist, and I've mostly left them as he wrote them. SlimVirgin (talk) 14:59, 20 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Reasons
 * "Like FGM, footbinding was an ethnic marker carried out on young girls, was nearly universal where practised, and was tied to ideas about honour, appropriate marriage, health, fertility and aesthetics. It controlled sexual access to women, was said to enhance male sexual pleasure, and was supported by the women themselves.[83]" >> some repetition of "was"
 * Only a suggestion, but think about moving footbinding to the end of the section to keep the emphasis on FGM


 * I couldn't see how to do that. Will look again. SlimVirgin (talk) 14:59, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I gave it a try,, but I think it breaks the flow into the next section, so I wouldn't bother trying to move it. Victoria (tk) 21:04, 20 September 2014 (UTC)


 * , I think I prefer your way of doing it, so I might revert to you, if that's okay. Your version of the section segues quite nicely into the next one, ending with "It was also supported by the women themselves," and the next section called "Support from women." SlimVirgin (talk) 20:11, 21 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes, of course, you're right. I must have overlooked the section header when I was testing, concentrating too much on the text, but I've looked at my notes and I think that's why I suggested it. It did make sense to me at the time. Victoria (tk) 20:40, 22 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Religion
 * Gerry Mackie >> introduce full name on first occurrence


 * Done. SlimVirgin (talk) 14:59, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

That's all. Thanks so much for asking me to review! Victoria (tk) 14:57, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I"ve read "Opposition" and "Criticism" and don't have any comments at the moment, but would like to re-read those sections. They are quite interesting.


 * Thanks, Victoria, I really appreciate these reviews. I'm in the process of psyching myself up for another round of fixes. Once I get started, I'll come back here to report what's being done. SlimVirgin (talk) 19:46, 12 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Many thanks again for the review, . SlimVirgin (talk) 14:59, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. I've read through the other sections and don't see anything else to comment about. Thanks for the replies, and, more than anything, thanks for doing the work on this page. Victoria (tk) 21:04, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

More comments from Johnuniq
@SlimVirgin: The article may not need more attention but I thought I would read it again. I'm unsure of the following, but I'm recording items that drew my eye.


 * General
 * It is good to avoid repetition of "FGM", but there may be too many "it". Perhaps each section should be considered in turn and "FGM" or a synonym (practice, tradition, procedure) used where reasonable. For example, I would change "referring to it" to "referring to FGM" in the Terminology/English section. However, perhaps change "The practice is mostly found" to "FGM is mostly found" in the Prevalence section.


 * Lead
 * I find the "is practised" link in the following a distraction because it suggests the words have some special meaning that I may not be aware of.
 * "FGM is practised by ethnic groups in 27 countries..."


 * Terminology/Local terms
 * Is it clear that the following is referring to the fact that many different procedures are regarded as FGM?
 * "The many variants of FGM..."


 * Procedures, health effects/Circumcisers, methods, ages
 * Should the following sentence be moved so the first and third sentences (which relate to cutting) are together?
 * "Cauterization is used in parts of Ethiopia."


 * Prevalence
 * Something is not quite right with the following:
 * "A 2013 UNICEF report based on 70 of these surveys indicated that FGM is concentrated in 27 African countries, Yemen and Iraqi Kurdistan, and that 125 million women and girls in those countries have been affected."
 * I suspect it would be better with "and" or "as well as" instead of the first comma, or it could be recast, for example:
 * "A 2013 UNICEF report based on 70 of these surveys indicated that FGM is concentrated in 27 African countries as well as Yemen and Iraqi Kurdistan, and that 125 million women and girls in those countries have been affected."
 * "A 2013 UNICEF report based on 70 of these surveys indicated that 125 million women and girls have experienced FGM in the regions where it is concentrated, namely in 27 African countries as well as Yemen and Iraqi Kurdistan."


 * There is something a little disjointed about the following, and I'm wondering if some words could be added to tie it to the previous sentence (and also, perhaps use "one-fifth" like the "one-quarter" in the preceding sentence: "Around one-fifth of all cases are in Egypt").
 * "Around one in five cases is in Egypt."


 * Is the following change an improvement?
 * "A country's national prevalence is affected by the practice's concentration among certain ethnicities."
 * "A country's national prevalence is affected by the fact that the practice is concentrated in certain ethnicities."


 * Why are Australia and New Zealand combined with "and" in the first of the following?
 * "...and by immigrant communities in Australia and New Zealand, Europe..."
 * "...and by immigrant communities in Australia, New Zealand, Europe..."


 * Reasons/Overview
 * Perhaps move "in surveys"?
 * "The most common reasons for FGM that practitioners have cited in surveys include social acceptance,..."
 * "In surveys, the most common reasons for FGM that practitioners have cited include social acceptance,..."


 * Shouldn't this semi-colon be a colon?
 * "There are also aesthetic factors; according to..."
 * "There are also aesthetic factors: according to..."


 * I think more "was" are needed for consistency:
 * "Like FGM, footbinding was an ethnic marker carried out on young girls, nearly universal where practised, and tied to ideas about honour, appropriate marriage, health, fertility and aesthetics."
 * "Like FGM, footbinding was an ethnic marker carried out on young girls, was nearly universal where practised, and was tied to ideas about honour, appropriate marriage, health, fertility and aesthetics."


 * Reasons/Support from women
 * A pedant is going to point out that a village cannot pledge anything. Not sure if there is a good fix.
 * "Mackie has worked with UNICEF to develop programmes in which villages pledge not to cut..."
 * "Mackie has worked with UNICEF to develop programmes in which village populations pledge not to cut..."
 * "Mackie has worked with UNICEF to develop programmes in which village inhabitants pledge not to cut..."
 * "Mackie has worked with UNICEF to develop programmes in which the people in a village pledge not to cut..."


 * I'm weak on grammatical rules like splitting infinitives, but "pledge not to x and to y" is slightly confusing.
 * "villages pledge not to cut girls and to allow their sons to marry uncut girls"
 * "villages pledge to not cut girls and to allow their sons to marry uncut girls"


 * Would it be better to spell out "the practice" so speed readers won't think it might refer to "model"?
 * "has used this model ... the first village in Senegal to abandon the practice."
 * "has used this model ... the first village in Senegal to abandon FGM."


 * History/Antiquity
 * Possibly need something to tie O'Rourke's statement to Knight's view that Spell 1117 may refer to an uncircumcised girl—I gather that O'Rourke is disputing the claim.
 * "Paul F. O'Rourke argues that it probably refers to..."
 * "However, Paul F. O'Rourke argues that it probably refers to..."


 * Opposition/Growth of opposition
 * Might need "and" after the comma.
 * "attracted international attention: in 1994 CNN broadcast images...in Cairo, a child died..."
 * "attracted international attention: in 1994 CNN broadcast images...in Cairo, and a child died..."


 * Perhaps reduce confusion regarding what "it" refers to.
 * "to rule that FGM had no basis in Islamic law, and the government outlawed it the following year."
 * "to rule that FGM had no basis in Islamic law, and the government outlawed the practice in the following year."
 * "to rule that FGM had no basis in Islamic law, and the practice was outlawed by the government in the following year."


 * Template:FGM opposition timeline
 * Consider changes:
 * "allowed partial clitoridectomy if parents requested it."
 * "allowed partial clitoridectomy if requested by parents."
 * and
 * "called on women's groups mobilize against FGM."
 * "called on women's groups to mobilize against FGM."
 * and
 * "wrote report on FGM for Minority Rights Group in France."
 * "wrote a report on FGM for the Minority Rights Group in France."


 * Criticism of opposition/Tolerance versus human rights
 * The following might need tweaking.
 * "One of the areas of dispute is whether the medical evidence supports that FGM is invariably harmful."
 * "One of the areas of dispute is whether medical evidence supports the idea that FGM is invariably harmful."
 * "One of the areas of dispute is whether medical evidence shows that FGM is invariably harmful."

Johnuniq (talk) 09:32, 4 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Hi, thank you, this is very helpful. I have one other thing I need to do first, but then I'm going to take another run through the article, and I'll address your issues when I do that. SlimVirgin (talk) 04:54, 5 October 2014 (UTC)