Talk:Abortion in Zambia

Abortion in Zambia has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Review: January 14, 2025. (Reviewed version).

This article is written in Zambian English and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

Zambia Low‑importance

	Zambia portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Zambia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Zambia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ZambiaWikipedia:WikiProject ZambiaTemplate:WikiProject ZambiaZambia
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Abortion Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Abortion, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Abortion on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AbortionWikipedia:WikiProject AbortionTemplate:WikiProject AbortionAbortion
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Medicine: Reproductive

	Medicine portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Reproductive medicine task force.

Women's Health

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women's Health, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women's Health on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women's HealthWikipedia:WikiProject Women's HealthTemplate:WikiProject Women's Healthwomen's health
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

A fact from Abortion in Zambia appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 31 August 2024 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that even though abortion is legal in Zambia, most are performed unsafely?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2024/August. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Abortion in Zambia.

Wikipedia

Feedback from New Page Review process

I left the following feedback for the creator/future reviewers while reviewing this article: A clearly-written and referenced page that is linked well within the series of 'Abortion in' articles. Thanks for the contribution!

Klbrain (talk) 14:37, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by AirshipJungleman29 talk 19:56, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(

Comment or view
Article history

)

... that even though abortion is legal in Zambia, most abortions are performed by illegal providers?

Source: [1]

Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Leonhard Kaiser

Moved to mainspace by Vigilantcosmicpenguin (talk). Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 5 past nominations.

— Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 01:46, 28 July 2024 (UTC).[reply]

Reviewing... Thebiguglyalien (talk) 05:46, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nominated a few hours after the 7 day deadline, should be fine.
The article is definitely long enough, the sources appear to be very high quality, and no copyvio detected.
I do have concerns about the hook's source. First, I didn't see where it supported the claim. But more importantly, the source is 12 years old and can't be expected to give an accurate picture of the situation today. You're either going to need a new source or a different hook.
Vigilantcosmicpenguin, the article is in good shape, but the source isn't sufficient for this hook. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 06:03, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Oops, I accidentally copy-and-pasted the URL for the wrong source.
- Source: [2] Although Zambia has among the most liberal abortion laws in sub-Saharan Africa, as many as 70% of the country’s abortions are considered “unsafe,” according to a 2016 study in Social Science & Medicine, an academic journal published in the Netherlands.
- This source is from 2022 and supports my claim. Although I'm now thinking it'd be better to phrase the hook as "unsafe" rather than "illegal" since that's what it says in the article.— Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 15:48, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yeah, that source should be fine. And unsafe is probably more accurate, because it also seems to include legal but "substandard" facilities. Do you have any thoughts about alternate wording for the hook? I'm not sure if "unsafe providers" is the best way to describe it. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 20:02, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    - I would phrase it as
    - ... that even though abortion is legal in Zambia, most abortions are performed unsafely?
    - That should more precisely reflect what the source says.— Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 21:10, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      - Works for me. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 21:21, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

Passed. Spookyaki (talk) 23:55, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This review is transcluded from Talk:Abortion in Zambia/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Vigilantcosmicpenguin (talk · contribs) 09:11, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Spookyaki (talk · contribs) 22:26, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I'll be reviewing this article.

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
It is factually accurate and verifiable, as shown by a source spot-check.
a (reference section): b (inline citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

First readthrough, notes

Copyvio looks good. No pictures to check. Sources are all sufficiently high-quality. Made a few minor tweaks myself. Some notes (do let me know if I am contradicting Zambian English conventions. I am not really familiar):

Zambia has one of the most permissive abortion laws in Africa, though its restrictions limit access. — This is referring to the TOP act? Or the general field of abortion law in Zambia? Please clarify in the article. Spookyaki (talk) 22:26, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

[reply]

Some critics of Zambia's abortion law believe that its restrictions are barriers to access for most Zambians. — Same as above. Spookyaki (talk) 22:26, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Specified that this refers to the TOP Act in lead and body. Did not change the mention in the first paragraph since the second paragraph clarifies it better. — Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 23:39, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

[reply]

...but has lower requirements for evidence. — Evidence of what? Please clarify in the article. Spookyaki (talk) 22:26, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Changed to ...but has lower requirements for the approval of health workers. — Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 23:39, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

[reply]

...and that the movement restricting abortion is much larger. — Larger than what? Please clarify in the article. Spookyaki (talk) 22:26, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Changed to ...and that many more people work to restrict abortion access than to increase it. — Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 23:39, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

[reply]

...only considering public health facilities if it went wrong. — What is "it"? Please clarify in the article. Spookyaki (talk) 22:26, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Changed. — Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 23:39, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

[reply]

Overall, the writing on this article is excellent. Will begin the spot check shortly. Spookyaki (talk) 22:26, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Second readthrough, spot check

Could you quote the sections (here on the review page) supporting the following claims?:

As of 2013, 88 public facilities provide abortions. Spookyaki (talk) 23:00, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I accidentally left out the citation for that one; it's the source by Parmar et al. Fixed. — Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 23:39, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

[reply]

The average cost of an abortion at UTH is 283 kwacha, or US$52.6, as of 2013. Spookyaki (talk) 23:00, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Table on page 830

This ratio is significantly higher than Africa's average. Spookyaki (talk) 23:00, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Page 3: For sub-Saharan Africa its estimated that 9.6% of maternal deaths are caused by unsafe abortion (Say et al., 2014). Its contribution in Zambia seems to be far greater.

Deaths in the antepartum period comprise 31.2% of maternal deaths. Spookyaki (talk) 23:00, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Page 107: [...] the consequences of limiting access to abortion are commonplace: the 31.2% of Zambian maternal mortality occurring in the antepartum period which includes abortion is broadly consistent with other countries in the region (Merdad and Ali, 2018).

I think the article would also benefit from including sfn citations with page numbers for the journals, but this is not required for GA. Spookyaki (talk) 23:00, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Overall, great work! I think this article s almost ready to go. Spookyaki (talk) 23:00, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Spookyaki: I think I've addressed everything. — Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 23:39, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good. going to go ahead and pass this. Thank you again for your excellent work! Spookyaki (talk) 23:51, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.