Talk:Abortion in Guinea

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The result was: withdrawn by nominator, closed by AirshipJungleman29 talk 16:44, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that Guinea has a law banning abortion, but an interpretation of the law says that receiving an abortion is not illegal?

• Source: [my translation] For this legal journalist, the Guinean penal code cannot condemn a woman who has had an abortion.

• • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/superseded combination

Moved to mainspace by Vigilantcosmicpenguin (talk). Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 13 past nominations.

— Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 04:59, 17 August 2024 (UTC).

• Not surprising or interesting, most abortion laws focus on prosecuting abortion providers rather than recipients. (t · c) buidhe 06:27, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

@Vigilantcosmicpenguin: Please address the above.--Launchballer 09:51, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

• How about this kind of similar statement:
• ALT1: ... that lawyers disagree about which circumstances allow legal abortion in Guinea?
• Source:
  — Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 17:15, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Full review needed.--Launchballer 21:26, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

This won't be a full review but the point of lawyers is to disagree. Bremps... 22:12, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy compliance:

• Adequate sourcing:
• Neutral:
• Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:
• Other problems: - "Cases" seem to be a magnet for otherwise irrelevant abortion stories that hit the news for one or two days. Perhaps it would be better to remove that section.

Hook eligibility:

• Cited:
• Interesting: - People discussing in which circumstances a law may or may not be applicable happens with basically all laws. In special laws about controversial stuff, such as abortion.

QPQ: Done.

Overall: Cambalachero (talk) 19:46, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

@Vigilantcosmicpenguin: Please address the above.--Launchballer 12:20, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

@Cambalachero: I regrettably cannot think of a hook that's more interesting. I will rescind this nomination. — Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 14:36, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

GA review

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 Guinea/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Vigilantcosmicpenguin (talk · contribs) 19:02, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

Reviewer: TheNuggeteer (talk · contribs) 14:37, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

Will review this in the next seven days. 🍗TheNuggeteer🍗 (My "blotter") 14:37, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

Criterion 1

• "in Senegal and in Burkina Faso" please remove the link for "in".
  • Done, if you think it's better this way. — Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 21:29, 6 September 2025 (UTC)
• "abortion ban,[8] permitted abortions" to "abortion ban, permitting abortions".
  • Done.
• "the abortion rate increased 48%" to "the abortion rate increased by 48%".
  • Done.
• "Guinea has a strong stigma about abortion." please put this somewhere else.
  • Moved so it's next to the sentence about opposition. — Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 21:29, 6 September 2025 (UTC)
• "PAC is available at all but one national hospital" how many national hospitals are there, then?
  • Specified. — Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 04:10, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

Criterion 2

• Where is page 19 of the Bankole source?
  • The source is available as a PDF with page numbers or as a webpage. The relevant quote is: "National laws (e.g., ministerial decrees, and penal and child codes) in eight Sub-Saharan countries—Benin, Central African Republic, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Gabon, Guinea, Mozambique and Rwanda—permit minors to obtain an abortion." — Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 21:29, 6 September 2025 (UTC)
• "Abortions must be performed by physicians" where is it mentioned in the source?
  • Oops, accidentally listed this as the Guttmacher Insitute source. In the GAPD source, it's mentioned in the part that says "Who can provide abortion services". — Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 21:29, 6 September 2025 (UTC)
• Provide a translation of the title of source 8.
  • Done.

Criterion 3

• I think you should expand the lead for Prevalence and post-abortion care.
  • Done. — Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 21:29, 6 September 2025 (UTC)
• If you can, can you compare the laws to other countries?
  • I can't find any sources that make statements directly comparing Guinea's law to other countries, so I don't think it's due weight to include anything something like that. — Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 04:10, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

The Rest of the Criteria

• Criterion 4: The article is good, but do you possibly have the opinions of lawmakers and politicians over this matter?
  • I have found no information about this. Articles about abortion quote lawyers and theologians, but nobody who is particularly relevant. I think it's likely that there have been no statements by lawmakers about the subject. — Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 04:10, 8 September 2025 (UTC)
• Criterion 5: Looks stable, good to go.
• Criterion 6: If you can find a picture, you can add it. If you can't, the article already is okay.
  • I can't find any images relevant to abortion in Guinea. — Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 04:10, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

Will add to the review a bit later. 🍗TheNuggeteer🍗 (My "blotter") 00:20, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

@Vigilantcosmicpenguin: Finished the review. 🍗TheNuggeteer🍗 (My "blotter") 01:30, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

• @TheNuggeteer: Addressed everything. — Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 04:10, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

  Passing. 🍗TheNuggeteer🍗 (My "blotter") 06:15, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

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.