Wikipedia:Peer review/Rape and pregnancy controversies in United States elections, 2012/archive1

Rape and pregnancy controversies in United States elections, 2012
This peer review discussion has been closed. I've listed this article for peer review because the article needs to be reviewed for POV issue first. I think the article is about as neutral as possible, but wording should be reviewed. Second, it needs to be reviewed for structure and format. Especially the Other controversies sections needs to be looked at.

Thanks, Casprings (talk) 02:04, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi, I'm not American and although somewhat aware of this controversy it's not something I've given a lot of time or thought to previously. This may have benefits and limitations for this review. Also, please bear in mind this is only my second peer review and the last one I undertook was sometime in 2011.

And thanks to everyone who took the time to write what I'm sure has been a very contentious article. I found it interesting, informative and well written. FiachraByrne (talk) 03:54, 16 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I can't find any policy on the matter, but is it normal for an article that is currently a good article nominee to undergo peer review? FiachraByrne (talk) 12:10, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I put it on hold. Will use your comments to improve the article then hopefully take it to GA.Casprings (talk) 01:04, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

I'll do the lead after I've gone through the rest of the article ...
 * Note. The Background section is entirely original research and synthesis of material outside the scope of the article.  This article is not the place to argue the theory of Rape and/or Pregnacy from rape.  Additionally, since the section is comprised of material that pre-dates this article it is clearly the attempt to write a research paper and link previous research to the 2012 election.  This entire section has to be deleted as a violation of WP:SYNTH and WP:OR.  Arzel (talk) 22:03, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
 * There is no original research in the background section and I'd advise you to read the sources used in the that section and consult the relevant policy pages (WP:NOR and WP:SYNTH) before making such claims. The section summarises secondary sources which deal with elements of the controversy – Akin's remarks – and situates them in a specific historical context. Original research applies when facts are introduced into an article for which no reliable source exists. This section is sourced to reliable sources which it summarises and therefore the charge of original research is misapplied. Likewise, the section does not infer original conclusions from its sources and therefore the charge of synthesis is also inappropriate.
 * There is no debate about rape in that section. It reports a relevant view of the incidence of pregnancy following rape and of some would-be physiological mechanism that women subjected to "forcible" rape have of forestalling pregnancy. As these views very much fall under the category of Fringe it is appropriate to state that they have no scientific validity and such statements are sourced to reliable authorities.FiachraByrne (talk) 23:25, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The subject of the article is in relation to the 2012 election. The background is not the background of the 2012 election and the view of rape related pregnacies, it is a research view of the question of rape related pregnacies.  I have written enough papers to see the clear research presentation in this section.  In a research paper it would be called the lit review aspect of the research.  By creating this section you are in effect writing a research paper on the this article.  Hence this section is contributing to Original Research.  Furthermore you are trying to link previous research to this event which is Synthesis of Material.  Simply put, any information included must be relevant to the article and specifically mention the effect regardinh the 2012 election.  The big problem the approach being done here is that you, the editor, is framing the background outside of the scope of the article.  If Casprings wants to write a research paper, I suggest he/she do it somewhere else, and the get it published in a journal.  Arzel (talk) 01:23, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

I think it's telling that you haven't constructed an argument that is pertinent to any existing wikipedian policy, much less to that of original research or synthesis as defined on the relevant policy pages. This is an individual interpretation of what constitutes original research and as such you should seek community consensus before seeking to apply at individual articles. You've also introduced a distinction between what you think is appropriate for inclusion in the background to a given article without actually defining the basis for that distinction in any meaningful terms (other than your assertion that you are somehow able to identify said distinction having "written enough papers"). That the material is relevant for inclusion in such a section is determined in the first instance by its presence in reliable sources and not by the idiosyncratic interpretation of what is germane as advanced by individual editors. The sources, cited in the section additions, have identified the theories of Mecklenburg and Willke as pertinent to the topic of this article. In terms of improving the article, they make the controversy more rather than less intelligible and provide much needed context for the reader. The additional statements that the theories of the Mecklenburg and Willke are "medical inaccurate" and without scientific validity is derived from policy relating to WP:FRINGE - as these are demonstrably pseudoscientific medical theories it is necessary for the article to state that fact per WP:FRINGE/PS on the basis of reliable and authoritative medical sources per WP:MEDRS. FiachraByrne (talk) 02:10, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Background
 * The background to these claims is lacking. They're obviously not pulling this stuff out of the air so there must be some kind of back history to this particular claim. Are there any available sources that account for its emergence? Such a context, if available, would improve the intelligibility of the article. Also, sources permitting, it might be useful to outline the implications of this claim for US abortion law.
 * There is background to it. It is detailed in pregnancy from rape.  I will try to offer a better summery and place tht as the main article.   Thanks Casprings (talk) 04:27, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Done . There may be more to add - particularly about Mecklenburg's wife. That he was inspired by Nazi experiments on ovulating women is an observation I'd be inclined to leave out. FiachraByrne (talk) 12:44, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Unrelated to the 2012 election controversy. Arzel (talk) 01:26, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
 * It's context which informs the controversy and is supported by the relevant sources.FiachraByrne (talk) 21:15, 20 January 2013 (UTC)


 * "US Republican politicians had claimed that pregnancy from rape is rare before the 2012 election cycle." This was a general statement endorsed by US Republicans and released just prior to the 2012 election cycle? The sentence lacks precision. It's obviously referring to some Republican politicians, I assume a minority, over a significant period of time.
 * Actually I think taking out republicans and saying some pro-life politicians is better. Targets a smaller group and makes sure we are saying some of that group.  Casprings (talk) 04:41, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Unless some of the politicians named in this paragraph are not Republicans I'd favour inserting "Republican" after "pro-life". Also I think you should change the text "before the 2012 election cycle" as it can be read as implying that such statements were made just before that date. I'd suggest: "During the three decades prior to the 2012 election cycle, several pro-life Republican politicians had claimed that pregnancy from rape was rare."FiachraByrne (talk) 01:53, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Done FiachraByrne (talk) 13:00, 18 January 2013 (UTC)


 * If the statements in this paragraph are to be presented chronologically, I'd probably lead with Holmes. Also, I think the relevance of his confirmation as a federal judge is questionable and, as currently formulated, breaks the flow of the text. You could just refer to his successful nomination?
 * I agree with that. I will change itCasprings (talk) 00:24, 18 January 2013 (UTC)


 * "The facts show that people who are raped—who are truly raped—the juices don't flow, the body functions don't work and they don't get pregnant. Medical authorities agree that this is a rarity, if ever." Judging from the source There should be an ellipsis (...) before the second sentence of that quote.
 * DoneCasprings (talk) 23:59, 17 January 2013 (UTC)


 * "He later apologized and later called his claim a mistake ..." Suggest: "He later apologized, saying he had been mistaken/in error ..."
 * DoneCasprings (talk) 23:59, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Todd Akin and "legitimate rape"
 * It might be better to move the image of Akin to the right hand side of the page, otherwise the first quote in that section will not be indented properly.
 * DOne Casprings (talk) 23:54, 17 January 2013 (UTC)


 * "On August 19, 2012, Republican member of the House of Representatives from Missouri's 2nd congressional district and candidate in the 2012 U.S. Senate elections in Missouri, and long-time anti-abortion advocate Todd Akin said that victims of what he called "legitimate rape" rarely become pregnant." This sentence is too long, contains too much information and is difficult to read. Might it make sense to break it into two sentences, introduce Akin in the first sentence, and then his statement on "legitimate rape" in the next?
 * Also I think it might be important to introduce some specific context for Akin's remarks if any is detailed in reliable sources. Has he made any such statements before? Has he made any significant or controversial comments on rape and abortion prior to this incident? Is there anything from his background relevant to this controversy that might inform the reader? FiachraByrne (talk) 12:27, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
 * DOne Casprings (talk) 23:59, 17 January 2013 (UTC)


 * "Akin's comments almost immediately led to uproar;" Currently unsourced - you can support it with this source.
 * DOne Casprings (talk) 00:15, 18 January 2013 (UTC)


 * "the term "legitimate rape" was assumed to imply belief that some types of rape are "legitimate", or alternatively that rape victims who become pregnant are likely to be lying about their claim." You might insert "the" before belief. I'm not sure if the text adequately reflects the sources. From those sources, the implication of the term appears to be that "legitimate" rape is equivalent to forcible rape - excluding other forms of rape (statutory rape, etc) as rape - and that trauma acts as a form of birth control. Although I follow the logic ("legitimate rape" implies "illegitimate [claims of being] rape[d]"), there's no suggestion in the sources that the term indicates that pregnant rape victims are lying (rather than that they are, for Akin et al., almost a logical impossibility). I'd rephrase this definition more carefully to reflect the sources and possibly look for better sources that might tease out a little more the implications and context of the term (I've had no luck finding any yet myself). Certainly, restate the claim which is that rape victims don't become pregnant and "legitimate" rape should be understood as equivalent to "forcible" rape
 * Done. However, need more sources to get at what akin meant in his own context.  Casprings (talk) 00:24, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
 * In one of the sources there was an interview with Akin where he said by "legitimate" rape he meant "forcible" rape. I'll try and find it. FiachraByrne (talk) 21:15, 20 January 2013 (UTC)


 * "Akin's comments were widely seen as being based on long-discredited pseudoscience; experts said the claims lacked any basis of medical validity.[14][15][16]" Akin's comments should fall under WP:FRINGE. Assuming you can find a good secondary medical source, per WP:MEDRS, you can go stronger than this in stating without in-text attribution or qualification that the claim is without validity. I've posted at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine to see what's the best source for this. Having said that you don't won't to lose the reporting of the largely negative response to his comments so I wouldn't excise anything here.
 * OK. A WP:MED participant provided links to a primary study (already frequently referenced in the secondary sources of this article but not included in the article itself) and a secondary source (a statement by the American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists which is also not included in the article). These sources can be used to make an unattributed statement to the effect that Akin's claims are medically inaccurate and that there is no biological basis to the claim that raped women have a physiological mechanism to prevent pregnancy. I would then follow that or a similar statement of fact with the attributed comments above. FiachraByrne (talk) 12:23, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Done Casprings (talk) 02:08, 18 January 2013 (UTC)


 * "Iowa congressman Steve King supported Akin,[17]" I assume that King is a Republican but this should be stated.
 * Done


 * "who saw Akin's comments as representative of his long-held views;" While it seems a credible statement, the sources cited do not support it.
 * Removed


 * "Akin co-sponsored a bill with Congressman Paul Ryan called the "Sanctity of Life Act" in 2011 which sought to confer "personhood" to the zygote at the moment of conception in an effort to make abortion illegal even in the case of rape.[22][23]" Source: "Congressman Paul Ryan, Romney's running mate, was among the sponsors, along with Akin, of the "Sanctity of Life Act" in 2011. The bill sought to confer "personhood" at the moment of conception, in an effort to make abortion, even in the case of rape, illegal. I think the paraphrasing in the last section of that sentence is a little too close to the source for comfort.
 * Reworded to bring out that he had supported limits in abortion, even in the case of rapeCasprings (talk) 21:05, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
 * "Akin's comment was widely characterized as misogynistic ..." Surprisingly, the sources don't support the claim that his remarks were misogynistic. The nearest one gets to that is from the third source which states that his comments "provoked howls of outrage" from women's rights groups. The most frequent characterisation from those sources is that his commentary revealed his deep ignorance. I assume, however, that it will be trivial to find a source to support the misogynistic statement?
 * I just went ahead and removed misogynistic. Someone who looks at the peer review can always add it back with a sourceCasprings (talk) 21:10, 18 January 2013 (UTC)


 * "Scott Ross of NBC said that Akin's comments affected his Senate candidacy. [27]" This reads like a retrospective analysis. In fact, the comments were made as the furore was developing and were both predictive and qualified.
 * Changed wording


 * "Tom Cohen of CNN said that according to Republican Party officials, the debate "shifts the national discussion to divisive social issues that could repel swing voters rather than economic issues that could attract them in a climate of high unemployment and stumbling recovery".[28]" Unless he's seen as particularly partisan or potentially unreliable, is Tom Cohen of CNN a necessary inclusion. Also, I'd adjust the text so that the quote is in the past tense. Might it be better to say that: "During the crisis, Republican party officials were reported as stating that Akin's remarks had shifted "the national discussion ..." ?
 * Changed wording per suggestion Casprings (talk) 21:19, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

End of part 1. FiachraByrne (talk) 03:54, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Reactions
 * "Akin's remarks were strongly condemned by some Republicans." Given the examples which follow I'd prefer "senior Republicans" here.Casprings (talk) 21:21, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
 * DoneCasprings (talk) 21:22, 18 January 2013 (UTC)


 * "National Republican Senatorial Committee" Place (NRSC) in brackets following this committee name as you refer to this committee by acronym in the next paragraph
 * DoneCasprings (talk) 21:22, 18 January 2013 (UTC)


 * "Republican super PAC ..." A PAC is what (Public Accounts Committee?)? Spell it out in first instance.
 * DoneCasprings (talk) 21:29, 18 January 2013 (UTC)


 * "He described Akin's comments as "biologically stupid" and "bizarre" and said that "This is not ..." Comma should follow "and said that"
 * DoneCasprings (talk) 21:29, 18 January 2013 (UTC)


 * " Mike Huckabee supported Akin by soliciting donations for his Senate campaign and accused the "Republican establishment" of a "carefully orchestrated and systematic attack. This should probably go into the following paragraph which contains examples of support which Akin received.
 * Done Casprings (talk) 21:29, 18 January 2013 (UTC)


 * "A representative of the American Family Association cited Willke's 1999 article ..." This is the first time that Willke's has been mentioned. Having at this stage done a little reading of the sources, I'd suggest including Willke's in the Background section; he's obviously significant for the pregnancy-rape claim.
 * Done. FiachraByrne (talk) 21:15, 20 January 2013 (UTC)


 * "Personhood USA spokeswoman Jennifer Mason said that ... "[we] are left with Reagan Republicans, who agree with the Republican Party platform on abortion, and Romney Republicans, a fringe group of liberals who compromise on human life." This is interesting context (Romney "weak" on abortion) and I wonder should some reference to this be included in the Background section.
 * Done. In background section


 * "President Barack Obama responded to Akin's comments by saying "Rape is rape ... And the idea that we should be parsing and qualifying and slicing what types of rape we're talking about doesn't make sense to the American people and certainly doesn't make sense to me." This is a one sentence paragraph and the only part of this section which discusses the Democratic Party response. Might it be fleshed out with responses from other senior Democratic Party members?
 * Not done, but will do it once I make other changes based on this peer review.Casprings (talk) 21:33, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, it's just a suggestion and dependent upon there being good sources to provide other Democratic reactions to the comments. FiachraByrne (talk) 21:15, 20 January 2013 (UTC)


 * "Akin gave two radio interviews in which he stated that he was in the election to win." I'd preface this by saying that despite intense pressure to step aside, Akin resolved to remain in the race.
 * DoneCasprings (talk) 21:38, 18 January 2013 (UTC)


 * "Representative Phil Gingrey, an OB-GYN ..." What's an OB-GYN?
 * Done. Spelled out Obstetrics and gynaecologyCasprings (talk) 21:38, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Political Impact

 * Two short paragraphs. Maybe amalgamate into one?
 * Done


 * "McCaskill lead Akin in this poll ..." Change to "led"
 * DOne

More later FiachraByrne (talk) 04:34, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Richard Mourdock: pregnancy from rape is "something that God intended

 * There are structural issues regarding how these various controversies link together coherently which I think I'll address at the end. Is there a single source that discusses all or most of these rape-pregnancy comment controversies of the 2012 election cycle?
 * There are some links in the background section that tie many of these together.Casprings (talk) 02:53, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Present structure is probably best. FiachraByrne (talk) 21:15, 20 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Any relevant background on Mourdock that might contextualise these comments? Has he made similar statements or been involved in similar controversies before? Is he identified with any particular wing of the Republican party or associated with any other pertinent groups?
 * He had strong connections to the tea party. This should be added.  Will work on this in the future.  Casprings (talk) 02:56, 19 January 2013 (UTC)


 * "Richard Mourdock, the Indiana State Treasurer and 2012 Republican Senate candidate, became embroiled in a controversy after stating that pregnancy from rape is "something that God intended" during a debate on October 23, 2012 while explaining his opposition to abortion even in the case of rape." This sentence, in my opinion, is overly long and has too many clauses. Could it broken down into two sentences? Would it be possible to state that these comments came about 2 months after those of Akin's. That might at least give the reader a chronological sense of the evolution of the controversy or controversies.
 * Done


 * "The comments contributed to Mourdock's loss to Rep. Joe Donnelly" Again, I'm not sure the source can support that statement. The commentary is prospective - made before the outcome of the election - and looks quite speculative. It is reasonable to assume that the rape comments were detrimental to his electoral chances but to state that definitively I think you'd need a source published after the electoral outcome (and with some reference at least to actual polling data ideally). The current source can be used to say something like, "Commentators at the time predicted that Mourdock's remarks were likely to negatively impact upon his electoral chances ..."
 * Added source Casprings (talk) 03:20, 19 January 2013 (UTC)


 * "Mourdock issued a statement which said..." When? Why? How long after his initial comments? Was he under pressure? There should be some context for this subsequent statement.Casprings (talk) 16:19, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Good point. The other statement needs a little context.  Will develop a paragraph once I work through the rest of the peer review.  Casprings (talk) 16:16, 19 January 2013 (UTC)


 * "When prominent Republicans, including Senator John McCain, asked him to issue an apology, Mourdock refused." That McCain asked him to apologise is repeated in the Reactions section immediately following. Is it necessary to include it here as well?
 * Sentence is removed.Casprings (talk) 16:19, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Reactions

 * "The Romney campaign subsequently issued a statement saying "Gov. ..." Comma after saying
 * DoneCasprings (talk) 16:22, 19 January 2013 (UTC)


 * "Senator John Cornyn, chairman of the National Republican Senatorial Committee said, ..." Comma after Committee
 * Done. I also used NRSC because it is defined in the Akin portion of the article. Casprings (talk) 16:28, 19 January 2013 (UTC)


 * "President Obama said on the Tonight Show, "Rape is rape. It is a crime," and, "These various distinctions about rape don't make too much sense to me." This sentence accurately represents its source. However, it appears to me that Obama is not addressing Mourdock's comments at all and is instead repeating his statement following Akin's remarks. If that's what he does, that's what he does but is there another account of this interview - perhaps with more detail - where he actually addresses Mourdock's contention? Or perhaps Obama disputes Mourdock more fully elsewhere?
 * I modified the sentence to make it clear that he was responding to a question about Mourdock. He went on to link it to women's issues, so the quote could be expanded.  What he actually said can be found here.Casprings (talk) 16:39, 19 January 2013 (UTC)


 * "Dan Parker, chairman of the Indiana Democratic Party immediately criticized Mourdock, and said, "I'm stunned and ashamed that Richard Mourdock believes God intended rape", and that he is an "extremist" who is out of touch with Indiana." Comma after Party; both instances of "is" in last clause should be changed to "was". This is from a reliable source, etc, but it's certainly a misrepresentation of what Mourdock said. I don't suppose any other source addresses this?
 * I can't find any source that deals with his statement, but certainly Mourdock himself states that he didn't mean that god intended rape. His statement is already in the article.  Not sure what to add here but to fix the statement.Casprings (talk) 16:59, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
 * True. I guess I'm uncomfortable as its such a blatant misrepresentation of his views. Anyhow, it's sourced correctly and it is what he said. FiachraByrne (talk) 21:15, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Other comments on rape and pregnancy

 * Structurally, this section is very problematic. I actually had a look at the talk page of the article for the first time just now, and there it was noted that there had been an attempt to organise the article chronologically by event rather than in a "person-by-person format" but that it had produced a disjointed mess. So I'm not sure how that might be handled but the current structure is not working, in my opinion. Would it be possible to get a link to the previously attempt to organize the page in chronological narrative?

Here is the last time there was a different organize that section. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rape_and_pregnancy_controversies_in_United_States_elections,_2012&oldid=525773169 Casprings (talk) 17:29, 19 January 2013 (UTC)


 * OK. I'm inclined to go with the present structure for now. FiachraByrne (talk) 21:23, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Steve King

 * Steve King: it might be relevant to state that King supports the "No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act" and to explain what that is and if anyone else significant to this general controversy supports this bill. I'm wondering also if this section might not be better either incorporating into the Akin section or immediately following it? When did he make these comments? How soon after Akin?
 * Having read a little on the above bill, I'd suggest putting some reference to it in the background section. It provides relevant context which makes these purported distinctions between putatively different forms of rape and their relationship to pregnancy and abortion far more intelligible.

I am going to come back for this. I am not sure that it really fits in the background section of the article. However, the comments might fit better in the Akin reaction section. Casprings (talk) 17:56, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Agreed. FiachraByrne (talk) 21:23, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Roscoe Bartlett

 * I dislike the long extract from the transcript of Bartlett's interview. It's a bit long, but could it or sections of it be put in a quotebox or something?
 * I dislike it also. I put it in a quote box, but it needs formatting.  Casprings (talk) 17:58, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
 * That's better, I think FiachraByrne (talk) 21:23, 20 January 2013 (UTC)


 * "On August 30, 2012, Rep. Roscoe Bartlett, a ten-term Republican Congressman from Maryland was asked to clarify his position on abortion." Add that he was speaking at a town hall meeting.
 * Done Casprings (talk) 18:04, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
 * "... the government should take away a woman’s access to making informed decisions about her own pregnancy,"[93] Bartlett lost his bid for re-election to the Democratic challenger John Delaney. Removing the comma after pregnancy; put a period after the closing quotation marks. New sentence begins with "Bartlett lost ..." (" ... about her own pregnancy". Bartlett lost ...")


 * DOne Casprings (talk) 18:07, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Once I've gone through the whole article, I'll revisit some of the points above in light of Baffle gab1978's removal of text and justification for same. I disagree with some of their decisions. FiachraByrne (talk) 12:38, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Tom Smith

 * "Following Todd Akin's comments, Pennsylvania Republican Senate candidate Tom Smith was asked on August 27, 2012 by the Pennsylvania Press Club about his no-exceptions anti-abortion stance." The first source used to support this sentence details that these comments were made arising out of inquiries of whether he supported Akin's position. This detail should be included.
 * Done Casprings (talk) 18:21, 19 January 2013 (UTC)


 * "because his relative had become pregnant out of wedlock." Change "relative" to "daughter". Source makes clear he's talking about his own daughter.
 * DoneCasprings (talk) 18:21, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Jim Buchy

 * "Republican State Representative Jim Buchy (R-OH) ..." The meaning of R-OH is not clear to a non-American readers.
 * Just stated he was from Ohio
 * "The reporter asked Buchy why he thinks some women may want an abortion." Change to "why he thought".
 * Done Casprings (talk) 18:23, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Added that the comments were criticized. Casprings (talk) 18:25, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
 * "These comments were picked up by the national media, including the Rachel Maddow Show" They were critical of his comments? Supportive? Lampooning?

Linda McMahon

 * "During a debate ..." When, where?
 * Done. Casprings (talk) 18:32, 19 January 2013 (UTC)


 * "McMahon's phrase "emergency rape" proved controversial and was commented on by the media." Why was this phrase controversial? What kind of comments did the media make about it?
 * Section needs more context. Will comeback and add it.  Casprings (talk) 18:32, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

John Koster and "the rape thing

 * "John Koster, a Republican congressional candidate in Washington's 1st District, said at a campaign fundraiser on October 28, 2012 when asked if he supports abortion rights in some situations, Koster replied that he only supports abortion in cases where a woman's life is in danger." Way too long, too many clauses, construction faulty, use past tense. Fourth source for this statement also specifies that he explicitly excluded cases of rape or incest as exceptions to his anti-abortion position and this should be included here to inform the subsequent quotations. Also the source linked to above gives better detail and context of how these remarks were obtained and should, in my opinion, be included here.
 * Changed wording. May come back to work with this some more.  Casprings (talk) 18:39, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Wider impact

 * "The overall response to the comments and controversies was negative, and were blamed for Republican losses during the election." "were blamed" should be changed to "was blamed" to agree with "response" but surely it was the commentary on rape rather than the response to that commentary which was blamed for electoral loses? You should probably cite several representative sources here to support this statement.
 * Changed wordingCasprings (talk) 22:26, 19 January 2013 (UTC)


 * "American political consultant and policy advisor Karl Rove in an opinion piece for the Wall Street Journal wrote" Place a comma after "Rove" and after "Journal" or move "wrote" to position after "Rove".
 * DoneCasprings (talk) 22:28, 19 January 2013 (UTC)


 * "On the federal level, the controversies were cited as causing or contributing to the defeats of Akin, Mourdock, McMahon, Smith and Koster.[122][123][124][125][126][127][128][129][130]" You should aggregate those nine citations into one footnote WP:CITEBUNDLE. Are there academic studies that look at the reasons for republican loses and electoral outcomes?
 * Working with the citations, including this is on my to do list for the article. There are no academic studies, I don't think.Casprings (talk) 03:12, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I bundled the citations into a single footnote.FiachraByrne (talk) 21:23, 20 January 2013 (UTC)


 * "However, Sen. Patty Murray, the chairwoman of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, said "[The] offensive comments from Todd Akin and Richard Mourdock did not decide this election. It was a result of hard work and critical strategic decisions over many months."" OK. Notable I guess because of who said it but not a very informative comment (they would say that wouldn't they?).
 * Yeah, I agree. It adds little.  I will take it out.  Casprings (talk) 03:14, 20 January 2013 (UTC)


 * "In an article in Salon, Joan Walsh wrote "suddenly Americans had to try to imagine how doctors or hospital administrators or law enforcement officials would decide what was 'legitimate rape,' as opposed to something else. Rape panels?"" Why this source? Is it representative?
 * She is a reasonably well known writer. I have no real answer to why this source.  I think it was someone of WP:N that was commenting on the effect on the election. Should it be removed?  Casprings (talk) 03:20, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
 * No. I was just wondering if you had an argument for its inclusion. FiachraByrne (talk) 21:23, 20 January 2013 (UTC)


 * "Conservative blog Hot Air linked Akin's remarks to a positive ten percent shift in US public opinion polls toward supporting legalizing abortion in all circumstances." "toward support for the legalization of abortion" Is there a better, more authoritative source for this observation?
 * Well, the polls they cite, but using that would be WP:SYN. Not sure if another secondary source made the commentary.  I will look.  However, it is reasonable notable because it is coming from a well known conservative outlet.  Casprings (talk) 03:22, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
 * OK. FiachraByrne (talk) 21:23, 20 January 2013 (UTC)


 * "The comments also were credited with helping President Obama win the women's vote. Karen Hughes, a former George W. Bush adviser wrote in Politico, "And if another Republican man says anything about rape other than it is a horrific, violent crime, I want to personally cut out his tongue. The college-age daughters of many of my friends voted for Obama because they were completely turned off by Neanderthal comments like the suggestion of 'legitimate rape.'"" Is Karen Hughes the only commentator who has made this observation? Can you add more sources to support the statement. Maybe you could cite the CNN source, which you use for data on the exit polls immediately below, to support the statement about Obama winning the women's vote? Is the first sentence of this quote necessary and does it add to the article?
 * The reason I like the comment is because it comes from a pretty senior GOP member. The problem is that the article is basically dependent on secondary sources that comment on the overall impact.  The only real scientific measure I could find was a CNN exit poll that directly asked voters if it effected their vote. I added that to the Akin section.  Casprings (talk) 04:17, 20 January 2013 (UTC)


 * "According to exit polls, 55% of women and 45% of men voted for Obama and 44% of women and 52% of men voted for Romney. Comments from otherwise low profile candidates such as Rep. Todd Akin, may have cost Mitt Romney the election and also reinforced for some voters concerns that the GOP is out of touch with women." Are there alternative analyses of the breakdown of voting patterns by gender? If so, should they be included here? Casprings (talk) 04:10, 20 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Well, there are secondary sources that suggest it had a wider impact. That in of itself is WP:N.  However, it is a rather difficult thing to really gauge scientifically.  The only real means to do so is exit polls.  I did find a CNN exit poll that directly asked if the Akin comment effected their vote.  I added that to the akin section.  Casprings (talk) 04:10, 20 January 2013 (UTC)


 * "These comments caused the Republican Party to look for ways to stop Republican election candidates from making similar comments about rape." "These comments", coming at the start of new paragraph, is unnecessarily vague. Change "Republican election candidates" to "its election candidates".
 * Done Casprings (talk) 04:22, 20 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Kevin Madden, a Republican strategist and senior adviser to the Mitt Romney presidential campaign, said..." Comma or colon after "said"
 * DoneCasprings (talk) 04:22, 20 January 2013 (UTC)


 * "Anti-abortion lobby groups, such as the Susan B. Anthony List, launched training programs to keep candidates and lawmakers from continually making the same kind of comments on rape." Source: "And it may have added new urgency to a training program that’s already being launched by an anti-abortion group — the Susan B. Anthony list — to keep candidates and lawmakers from continually making the same kind of comments ..." The wording of the second half of this sentence is too close to source. Please rephrase (don't just change the position of the words; rewrite it).
 * Done.

FiachraByrne (talk) 23:51, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Lead
 * The lead is too short and should be expanded to adequately summarise the article WP:LEAD. You actually have most of the main points in the lead but it is a little too succinct I think.
 * Expanded in two ways. One, is that I mention the national effect as being only possible and mentioned women voters.  Second, I mentioned the possible effect of these other controversies.  I don't know if you had any other thoughts.  Casprings (talk) 04:41, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Overlink
 * You have two duplicated links. One to the Washington Post and one to the National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC). Remove these duplicate links.
 * Must of fixed this in my editing to this point

Disambiguation links
 * None

Dead links
 * 6 dead links tagged using Reflinks

Present tense
 * Generally, watch your use of the present tense; these are past events and should be written in the past tense.
 * Also need to add to my to do list. The article should be looked at and put in past tense.

FiachraByrne (talk) 01:58, 18 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Are we ready to close this peer-review? FiachraByrne (talk) 21:25, 20 January 2013 (UTC)


 * If you have any other thoughts, I would love to hear them. This gives plenty of things to do to improve the article, and I look forward to working on the article based on your comments.  However, I would be foolish to suggest it be closed, if you have more thoughts.  That said, thank you for your efforts. Casprings (talk) 21:44, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, I don't think I have much more to add for the moment. I'll keep it on my watch-list and revisit the article in a week or so, have a re-read of it, and see then if anything else that springs to mind. Good luck with the good article review! FiachraByrne (talk) 21:54, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Then thanks again for the help.Casprings (talk) 22:02, 20 January 2013 (UTC)