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The result was: withdrawn by nominator, closed by AirshipJungleman29 talk 16:44, 3 October 2024 (UTC)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: [1] [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• Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/superseded combination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: [2]
  — 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)