Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Female genital mutilation/archive1

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by Ucucha 21:51, 19 September 2011 [1].

Female genital mutilation

Nominator(s): SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 02:00, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This article recently underwent a rewrite, and I'd like to nominate it for FAC because I think it meets the standards. An enormous amount has been written about the subject, so this article can only present the key issues, but I think it does that, and I've tried to keep it at a readable length (currently 3,791 words). A note about the main image—it was uploaded and released under a cc-by in April 2010 by User:Buweosman (here Buweosman), who says on his Commons user page that he is the artist, but I've sent him an email just to get confirmation of that. The other images are unproblematic, so far as I can tell. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 02:00, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As there has been a substantial objection here, and similar concerns on talk, I'd prefer to withdraw the nomination for now. I'll leave a note to that effect for one of the delegates. Many thanks to everyone for the input. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 19:02, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:33, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Book sources need ISBNs
Where a source is included in References, don't include full bibliographic info in Notes
Heger Boyle, Elizabeth or Boyle, Elizabeth Heger?
Use a consistent citation format - for example, compare FNs 4 and 7. Both are books, yet are formatted differently
FN 9, 56.2: page(s)?
Format multi-author works consistently
What is USAID? IRIN? Spell out or link acronyms
FN 18: date?
FN 20: italicization
Be consistent in the use of vol vs volume
Abdalla: italicization
Missing publishers for many of the Literature sources
Why such an extensive Further reading section? Also, don't include cited sources in Further reading. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:33, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All fixed, I think, except for ISBNs, which I don't add. Also, when using books refs, I give a full citation on first reference in the footnotes, and a short ref thereafter, then I repeat the full citation in the References section. The FR is longish in part because I think people will use the article as a resource, and in part because many of the books and films were added by other editors, and I didn't want to remove them all; the section was quite a bit longer until recently. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 03:06, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Then why include a References section at all? And why no ISBNs? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:17, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I include the full ref once in the footnotes, because as a reader I find it helpful to have one full citation for each book in that section, so I'm not forced to jump back and forth; it's just a preference issue. As for ISBNs, I've never seen the point of directing readers to a specific edition of a book, which may not be the edition that's consistent with the page numbers in the refs. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 03:23, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm a little bit concerned by the lead image. I think it's fair to say that most readers would expect the lead image of an article to be illustrative and representative of the topic they are reading about. I don't think this image does that. It's too abstract and it pretty much requires the artist's thoughts in order to interpret it (you even suggested this to another reader on the talk page). I could make suggestions for images, or suggest no image in such a prominent position, but I suspect image choice might be controversial. So I don't offer arguments for another image, the censorship of certain types of images, or anything else. I just offer my concerns with this image. Cheers, Ben (talk) 02:54, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's an image of a woman sitting with her legs closed, which is somewhat iconic of FGM Type III, as the women have their legs bound together for weeks so the raw sides of the vulva bond. The same artist has more explicit images that he might be willing to release, but I like this one because it's subtle, and the vivid colour certainly gives an impression of pain. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 03:06, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nicely done, ~~and I think the scope and size is adequate,~~ (update: see talk 15:45, 15 September 2011 (UTC)) but the following changes will help bring the citations in line with those expected in medical articles, and (some) per WP:MEDRS:

Sample only: WHO study cited for medical research. In such a case, the press release is not the preferred citation-- the actual Lancet article should be located and cited, and the laypress article could also be cited (I know cite journal templates aren't used in this article, but cite journal allows an option where the original journal article is cited and the laypress version is also included-- something mimicing that format can be done here. See Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/Female genital mutilation/archive1#Lay sources for a sample.)
Per Nikkimaria's suggestion above, I do believe ISBNs are helpful for the specific reason given for not using them-- to help make sure the page numbers go to the version used, and ISBN links give further resources (as someone taught me a while back, can't recall whom).
Medical articles should also use PMID identifiers (which I will be glad to search for and provide if that will be helpful-- sample). The convention in medical articles is to not link to abstracts only in the general citation, as subscription required abstracts don't help the reader much, rather to link in the citation title only when full text is available, to link PMIDs on all medical journal articles (this allows the reader to determine if articles are review, primary research, etc, and allows reviewers to determine more easily if sources are used correctly), and automatically provides a link to the abstract. I suggest delinking in the article title when the link goes only to an abstract (rather than full text) and adding PMIDs on all medical journal articles, which links the abstract and gives info about the type of study-- I'll be glad to do this work if requested. It will be time consuming and difficult to determine if medical sources are used correctly without doing this work.
Page and year ranges could be shorted to last two digits only.

I can do a more thorough review if PMIDs are included. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:09, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sandy, if you could search for the PMIDS—or tell me how to do it, and I'll add them—that would be helpful. I just looked for one for this article, but couldn't find it.

Elchalal, Uriel; Ben-Ami, Barbara; Gillis, Rebecca; and Brzezinski, Amnon. "Ritualistic Female Genital Mutilation: Current Status and Future Outlook", Obstetrical & Gynecological Survey, vol 52, issue 10, October 1997, pp. 643–651.

SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 14:22, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can work on them later, out the rest of the day. If you want to work on some of them yourself in the meantime, just go to one of the ones I already did, that will take you to PMID, and from there you can search... but the PMID search engine can be frustrating, so I'll be glad to fill them in later when I'm home. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:24, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks, I'll give it a try. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 14:34, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think I've added all the PMIDs that I can find (a couple that I thought would have one appear not to). I also added a ref for the 2006 Lancet article, rather than just the WHO summary of it as you mentioned above; see diff. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 16:32, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can't support a featured article having "In fact..." in the lede. It has the same effect as someone saying "honestly"; it actually diminishes the perceived reliability of what follows. It isn't encyclopedic to use "in fact", "notably", "actually" and the like, except in direct quotations. I am sure this can be rewritten. I may have other comments. --John (talk) 17:47, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I re-wrote this passage as per your comments above, let me know if the current wording still does not meet with your approval. Vietminh (talk) 02:38, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, that's much better. --John (talk) 16:12, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I also support the usefulness of ISBNs. Also if I added available DOIs, using {{doi}}, to provide additional links to the journal papers would that be a problem (haven't checked how many have DOIs, probably most of them)? Rjwilmsi 18:42, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I wouldn't mind if you were to add DOIs. And thanks for checking first. :) SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 18:48, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am just coming out of retirement for a minute to say that I strongly support the nomination for featured article. I can't recall ever seeing a more worthy candidate, and I'm very impressed at what has been achieved. I congratulate everybody who has helped to transform this article into one that everyone on Wikipedia should be proud of. Especial thanks to SlimVirgin for her outstanding work. Thanks also to Johnuniq for the heads up about this nomination. Rubywine . talk 01:08, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See FAC instructions; you should declare your involvement with the article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:04, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, I didn't know that rule. Had I been able to take any credit for the article I would have mentioned my involvement, but I can't. I was very involved in discussion of the article for a couple of weeks, after answering a recent RfC. The article was deeply flawed at the time, and the talk page was locked in a longstanding controversy, which I tried to help move forward by discussing the issues and suggesting various changes. I made 9 edits to the actual article most of which were deletions. I added a small amount of content which now appears under '"History and cultural context" and "Health consequences". My contributions have since been edited, and I stopped editing the article before it was completely transformed into its current state. Although I was very invested in this article, and wanted it to be improved, I cannot take the smallest credit for the way it has turned out. Rubywine . talk 15:26, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose This is an important subject and Wikipedia, as the #1 Google link on the subject, should offer first class article. However, this article is not yet among our best work.

The degree of in-text attribution is rather overwhelming. No less than nineteen authors and five organisations are attributed in-text. There are several reasons for doing this such as citing opinions, quoting, close paraphrasing, or restricting a fact to mere personal observation. Many times I could see no good reason why our article should not express the words in original writing and with confidence. This is the biggest problem and I suspect a substantial rewrite is required to produce an article that contains sufficient original writing expressed with encyclopaedic confidence to be considered our very best work. One example: Alexia Lewnes is attributed for her view on the rationale behind the WHO use of the word "mutilation". Since we've just stated that the WHO recommended the term to the UN, why not use their rationale? It's in the sources. We could then say "WHO recommended its use to the United Nations because ...". Another: Anika Rahman and Nahid Toubia are attributed for saying certain local terms for FGM are "synonymous with purification". Are they or aren't they? If this is a fact, and the source is reliable and authoritative, then why not just state the fact and leave the attribution for the footnote citation? Another: the extensive quote from Momoh's book describing the procedure uses language at a medical textbook level. Wikilinking the hard words isn't enough per WP:NOT PAPERS. Rewriting this in our own words gives us the opportunity to improve readability, which surely we are compelled to do for such a subject.
The article isn't well structured. Why should "Background" be a sub-heading in any encyclopaedia article other than perhaps one covering an event in history? Why are "History and cultural context" combined? Why are "Classification and health consequences" combined? Why are "Prevalence and attempts to end the practice" combined? The subheading "Since the 1960s" makes me think the preceding and subsequent sections are chronological, or that the 1960s were pivotal. They aren't. They weren't. Some suggested headings might be (1) Classification [includes terminology]; (2) Health consequences; (3) Epidemiology; (4) History; (5) Social dynamics; (6) Human rights; (7) Legislation; (8) Preventative measures.
The article needs to decide where it stands wrt WP:NPOV. To quote the WHO, "FGM is recognized internationally as a violation of the human rights of girls and women. It reflects deep-rooted inequality between the sexes, and constitutes an extreme form of discrimination against women. It is nearly always carried out on minors and is a violation of the rights of children. The practice also violates a person's rights to health, security and physical integrity, the right to be free from torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment, and the right to life when the procedure results in death."[2] It is considered child-abuse by the social services and is grounds for claiming asylum. It is a criminal act in many countries. Yet our lead contains the distant sentence "Opposition to FGM focuses on human rights violations, lack of informed consent, and health risks". Substitute "FGM" in that sentence with "rape" or "incest". Doesn't work. In contrast to that, we use the loaded term "female genital mutilation" as the article title. USAID make a good case for using the neutral term "female genital cutting"[3] (the rationale for which could be covered better by the article). I'm not suggesting the article title is changed, but pointing out that we can't call it "mutilation" and at the same time fall over backwards to avoid saying it is a violation of human rights. It would be interesting to explore what degree we could repeat the above WHO statements as fact.
The epidemiology is not comprehensive. There's more to the subject than just prevalence. The incidence per year is shocking. The trends over time not covered. Has legislation changed anything? The table of countries is dry and unhelpful: there's little to be learned here that isn't visible in the map or better handled by the daughter article. BTW, This UNICEF source looks useful.
The research behind the article could dig deeper to uncover either the studies behind the figures or professional publications that cite them. Sometimes I think in-text attribution is being used because the editors aren't confident that the figures are authoritative enough to be encyclopaedic. For example, the "66,000 women in England and Wales have experienced FGM" fact is in-text attributed to FORWARD and sourced to an article in The Times. The actual study is linked from here. There are professional secondary sources that refer to it. Therefore, it is considered a reliable source of information on the prevalence of FGM in E&W and we could use these sources to state it as an unattributed fact (though we need to say it is an estimate rather than a gathered fact).
Don't cite and attribute, to a newspaper, figures that if reliable and trustworthy would have been gathered by a formal study or official department and published and discussed by professional reliable sources. To begin with, we shouldn't write "The Times reported..." or "The Guardian writes that" for articles written by named journalists (as opposed to editorials or anonymous staff collaborations). An FA with "professional standards of writing, presentation, and sourcing" shouldn't be citing the lay press for such things. It's like an article on Jane Austin citing biographical facts to the Radio Times. The London Safeguarding Children Board Website looks a useful professional resource for how one major city with a sizeable immigrant population is dealing with the issue and is a better source on the summer holiday problem than The Guardian.

Colin°^Talk 23:10, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.