Talk:Female genital mutilation/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: LT910001 (talk · contribs) 04:20, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Hello, if there are no objections I'll review this article. I haven't had any part in creating or editing this article. To other reviewers, please feel free to comment. To the nominator, if this is your first GA review, this is intended to be a dialogue, so feel welcome to comment at any time.

Firstly, thank you for helping create and edit this article to its current form. This is quite a controversial issue capable of provoking strong emotion, so it's good to see this is covered in a relatively impartial way. I will get to the bulk of the review later today. Kind Regards, LT90001 (talk) 04:20, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Many thanks for agreeing to review, LT. I'll keep a look out here for your comments. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:23, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Right. Let's get this review started. During this review I'll be making reference to the Good Article Review Criteria (WP:GACR).

In general, this article is very well-written, concise, and with good prose. This is a difficult topic to write about, as is mentioned in the piece, as it is tied in with one's perception of the role of women and traditional practices. An article about such a controversial issue is likely to have NPOV issues and I'd like to note this at the outset.

I'll go through a copy-edit of each section and discuss points as we go along.

Lede

• The most difficult section to get right.
• "FGM is practised as a cultural ritual in 28 countries in western, eastern, north-eastern and sub-Saharan Africa, and in parts of Asia and the Middle East.[3]" suggest -> "FGM is primarily practiced in 28 countries in ..."; you mention the reasons later on and this has been conducted in other countries.  Done

• Adding primarily didn't work, so instead I added "and within immigrant communities elsewhere" to the end of the sentence.

Yep, sounds good. LT90001 (talk) 23:44, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

• "It is usually... " suggest "When carried out, ..." as I feel this sentence is otherwise quite blunt.

• I'm not sure I follow your suggestion about "when carried out ..." for the next sentence.

Fair enough. LT90001 (talk) 23:44, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

• "Wealthier families may have it performed in a hospital.[5]" suggest -> ", although it may also be carried out in hospitals, by mothers or grandmothers, or local male barbers." in keeping with what you mention later

• The barbers count as traditional circumcisers, as the mothers and grandmothers probably do too.

As a lede is supposed to be an overview, I think it would be better if this sentence was a bit more generalised. LT90001 (talk) 23:44, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

That relates to this MOS guideline on lede sections (MOS:INTRO) which states that "The lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article". LT90001 (talk) 09:45, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

• "Type II (excision) " -> new sentence.

• Type II (excision): Type I is the removal of X, and Type II the removal of Y. It needn't be two sentences.

Yep, just a small readability issue in my opinion. As "and" typically comes at the end of a list, I found it a little jarring that it was used between Types I and II, rather than III and IV. LT90001 (talk) 23:44, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

This statement relates to MOS on lists (MOS:LIST), items in a list should be reported equally and in their own sentences. LT90001 (talk) 09:45, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

• Type IV -> Is gishiri cutting an example or a synonym? (unclear) -> suggest "(such as ...)"

This relates to the MOS guidelines on lede sections (MOS:INTRO), which states "Where uncommon terms are essential, they should be placed in context, linked and briefly defined. " LT90001 (talk) 09:45, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

• "The practice is rooted in gender inequality, ideas about purity, modesty, aesthetics, honour and cultural identity, and attempts to control women's sexuality by reducing their sexual desire.[11] " This is a controversial statement and you have wisely backed it up with several quoted sources.

• The practice is rooted: not really controversial – this is pretty much what all the sources say. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:43, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Terminology

Terminology  Done
"Urologist Jean Fourcroy ... then childbirth when she has to be cut again.[24] " suggest move lower; this isn't so much about terminology as a cultural perspective in some communities.  Done Done; moved it to "Support from women" section. SlimVirgin (talk) 16:43, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Prevalence

Prevalence  Done

The American Academy of Pediatrics 1998 stat is getting a bit old (15 years and counting). You write about the significant debate, opposition, delegalisation and publication regarding this issue, I think it might be useful to have a more recent state to compare this with. Caldwell, Orubuloye and Caldwell write that 80–88 percent of women in Africa who have experienced FGM live in sub-Saharan Africa, 51 percent in West Africa and 27 percent in Nigeria.[30] The WHO reports that nearly half live in Egypt and Ethiopia.[31] " This is confusing because Egypt is not subsaharan. It is also confusing because I'm not sure whether to treat W-Africa + Subsaharan Africa as one or two regions, as you state in the lede. It would be nice to note that the rates for younger people in endemic countries is much less than those for adults (that's here [1], in a source you use.) Removed 1998 stats. Yes, the sources contradict each other, and not only on these points. It has been the most frustrating part of working on this article. I've added something from that source (that rates are declining in certain countries); will see if there's more that can be added. SlimVirgin (talk) 16:43, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Health aspects

• Circumcisers
  • "...known as a gedda". Given the diverse range of practicing countries, cultures and language groups is 'gedda' universal?  Done

• Added "The procedure is generally performed without anaesthesia by a traditional circumciser, usually an older woman who also acts as a midwife, known as a gedda in Somalia or daya in Egypt and Sudan."

• • "Wealthier families may pay instead for the services of a nurse, midwife or doctor using a local anaesthetic.[33] " suggest flip to: "A nurse, midwife or doctor may be employed to carry out the procedure using local anaesthetic by wealthier families.", so that the focus is on the circumciser.  point of personal difference

• Wealther families: I prefer the first sentence – "using local anaesthetic by wealthier families" would have to be tweaked.

I'll reply under each point. I think that flipping this sentence around allows the article to more clearly focus on FGM, rather than people who use FGM. LT90001 (talk) 23:57, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

This changed is based on personal preference only. LT90001 (talk) 10:02, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

• • "According to Toubia " You state this quite confidently elsewhere, and it's quite hard to keep track of all these names. suggest remove "according to" if you feel this is well-cited.  Done

• Removed according to Toubia.

• • I see Adere is not wikilinked as this redirects to the runner.
• Types 1 and II
  • Picture caption 'and how they differ from normal female anatomy' is a little tautological given FGM is a procedure. Suggest remove. Done

• Removed words from caption.

• • Suggest "Type I is more commonly Type Ib (clitoridectomy), " -> "More common is Type 1b (clitoridectomy)..."  Done

• Added "More common is Type 1b ..."

• • "The WHO classification has been criticized because it relies on reports from the women themselves, who use local terms rather than medical language. A 2006 study published in the British Medical Journal suggested that the reliability of these reports is low.[26]" I think you mean "Self-reported FGM ratings have been criticised as unreliable [citation]".

• It's the WHO classification that has been criticized because of the self-reporting.

Yep. I am still a little unclear on what this means. Do you mean that the actual classification system has been criticised? What is reliable or unreliable about a classification system? (surely reliable/unreliable relates to people who use it?) LT90001 (talk) 23:57, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Secondly, suggest you move the BMJ introduction (a 2006 study...) to become a reference. LT90001 (talk) 23:57, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

The sentence now reads: "The WHO classification has been criticized because it relies on reports from the women themselves using local terms; a 2006 study published in the British Medical Journal suggested that there is considerable under-reporting of the severity of the procedures."

The source is: Elmusharaf, Susan; Elhadi, Nagla; and Almroth, Lars. "Reliability of self reported form of female genital mutilation and WHO classification: cross sectional study", British Medical Journal, 332(7559), 27 June 2006.

The source says: "The reliability of reported form of FGM is low. There is considerable under-reporting of the extent. The WHO classification fails to relate the defined forms to the severity of the operation. It is important to be aware of these aspects in the conduct and interpretation of epidemiological and clinical studies. WHO should revise its classification."

According to quoted source above, the classification system is criticised because the classification doesn't relate to the severity of operation. The reliability of reported FGM appears to be a separate issue. This relates to the 'well-written' criteria for GA status (WP:GACR). LT90001 (talk) 10:02, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

I think it's better to say within the sentence who said this, rather than in a footnote. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 05:21, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

I've responded to this in your comment below about in-text attributions. This issue relates to verifiability and NPOV (WP:GACR). LT90001 (talk) 10:02, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

• Type III
  • "Around 15 percent of women who experience FGM undergo Type III; most FGM procedures (80–90 percent) in Somalia, Sudan and Dijbouti are Type III...." suggest move to after "small hole is created by inserting something into the wound before it closes, such as a thorn, a twig or rock salt.[40]", as this interrupts your description of the procedure.  Done

• Moved "Around 15 percent of women who ..."

• • "Momoh describes a typical procedure" suggest Wikilink Momoh again, as (although you already mention here) this is quite confusing. Illuminating quote though.

• • "The vulva is cut open for sexual intercourse " and quote, suggest move to below where you discuss defibulation

• Cutting open for intercourse isn't the defibulation procedure, so the former is better under the Type III description. :::: Fair enough. LT90001 (talk) 10:02, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

• Reinfibulation
  • "(RI)" suggest remove; used once in paragraph  Done

• Removed RI. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:53, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Complications

Complications  Done

single-use tools were used -> single-use instruments.  Done -> "for example to close an opening..."  Done "Immediate complications are enhanced when FGM is performed in traditional ways" I feel you stated this quite thoroughly in the paragraph above. If retain, suggested "enhanced when" -> "associated with the use of traditional methods in performing FGM" although I feel you deal with this above.  Done "a bleeding complication" -> "fatal bleeding" or "fatal haemorrhage"  Done Other immediate complications include acute urinary retention, urinary infection, wound infection, septicemia, tetanus, and in case of unsterile and reused instruments, hepatitis and HIV.[5]  Done Suggest -> "Acute complications may include tetanus and septicaemia, wound infection, urinary infection and urinary retention, and transmission of hepatitis or HIV if instruments are unsterile or reused." The transmission of hepatitis and HIV occurs in the acute phase (although the actual disease might be chronic) This reads much better now. LT90001 (talk) 00:07, 12 September 2013 (UTC) suggest for readability reword to -> "Late complications vary depending on the type of FGM performed.[5] Urinary and genital tract fistulas, strictures, obstruction may occur, as a result of scars and keloids. Incontinence and chronic infection may result from damage to the urethra and bladder. In the genital tract, sequelae may include vaginal and pelvic infections, dysmenorrhea, dyspareunia and infertility.[32] ..." "– it is difficult to obtain clear urine samples as part of prenatal care, making the diagnosis of conditions such as preeclampsia harder.[32] " -> plus risk of infection to neonate "FGM women than in controls" -> "women who have experienced FGM" (no need for 'controls')  Done Psychological Toubia (? wikilink) "They typically " -> "Such women may"  Done Perhaps reword ", but FGM does not necessarily destroy sexual desire in women. Sociologist Elizabeth Heger Boyle reported several studies during the 1980s and 1990s where the women said they were able to enjoy sex, though with Type III the risk of sexual dysfunction was higher.[56]" -> "However, FGM does not necessarily destroy sexual desire in women [cit]"; if you feel the source is strong enough no need to couch it. At any rate, suggest removing "Sociologist Elizabeth Heger Boyle reported several studies during the 1980s and 1990s "  Done Changed single-use tools to single-use instruments. Added "for example" to close an opening ... Removed "Immediate complications are enhanced when FGM is performed in traditional ways". Removed "in controls". This is the part that Ekem wrote, and I feel a little under-confident about changing it. Yep, thanks fine. I'm happy to leave that paragraph as is.LT90001 (talk) 00:07, 12 September 2013 (UTC) Toubia is already linked. The women do typically report sexual dysfunction, according to all the sources I've read that mention it, although they also say that some or all of the women can have some sexual desire. Yep. I feel that "they typically" is painting with a broad brush and also a little subjective in terms of "typical" being somewhat in the eyes of the beholder. I think a more objective way may be to say "Women who have experienced FGM commonly..." LT90001 (talk) 00:07, 12 September 2013 (UTC) Removed "Sociologist Elizabeth Heger". SlimVirgin (talk) 17:19, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

History

• c. 64 BCE – c. 23 CE inconsistent format with dates in same paragraph.

• Not sure I understand about the dates.

I should have been more specific. The other dates that cross the start of the CE don't have the second 'c.' and have no spaces: c. 64 BCE–23 CE

This relates to the wiki guideline on dates (MOS:DATEUNIFY), which states that dates should have a consistent format throughout the article. LT90001 (talk) 09:48, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

This is not a requirement for GA status. Only the five MOS pages specified in the criteria matter. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:01, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

• "17:10" should probably be a normal citation so as to be consistent with your overall style.  Done

• Moved 17:10 into footnote.

• Interesting section  Done
• "a Dr. Graefe" -> "Doctor [name] Graefe"  Done

• Added Graefe's name. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:19, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Support and opposition

• Getting to the 'meat' of the article.
• Not entirely NPOV

Reasons for the practice

• • "At the root of the practice is a desire to control women's sexuality, and to promote female chastity and sexual fidelity. ... undoing an infibulation without being discovered" suggest reword -> "The practice is intertwined with beliefs about a women's sexuality, the practice viewed as a way of promoting female chastity and sexual fidelity. Type III FGM may be believed to maintain virginity and monogamy..." to decrease the active voice and add some flexibility

• I prefer the "At the root of the practice ..." sentence. It's a very accurate summary of the source material.

I find this paragraph confusing and not entirely NPOV. I think this is because assertions by others about beliefs, and the beliefs themselves, are often intermingled. I think a reorder of the paragraph in the order: beliefs of practitioners, then assertions about beliefs would resolve this issue whilst retaining the content of the paragraph. For example, the beliefs of practitioners are to promote female chastity and sexual fidelity; the assertions by others are that represents an attempt to control female sexuality and serve male sexuality.LT90001 (talk) 00:44, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

I believe the use of the phrase "at the root of the practice" to be editorialising (WP:EDITORIAL). LT90001 (talk) 10:13, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

I believe the combination of observational data and analysis to be intermingling fact with opinion (WP:ASSERT), that could be fixed if the analysis was reordered. LT90001 (talk) 10:13, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

• • "Toubia argues, the aim is to serve the interests of male sexuality" suggest move to another section; this could be read as point-of-view pushing.

• "In both cases, Toubia argues, the aim is to serve the interests of male sexuality." Not sure where I'd move it, or why. It's self-evidently true of the previous sentence: "In Egypt, Sudan and Somalia, the focus is on curbing premarital sex, whereas in Kenya and Uganda it is carried out to reduce a woman's sexual desire for her husband so that he can more easily take several wives."

See above statement. I don't think this needs to be removed. LT90001 (talk) 00:44, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

• • "Among the many reasons for the practice's continuance is that the rituals surrounding FGM serve to reinforce ethnic boundaries and are seen as a joyful celebration of community values." A valuable point

• • "Anti-FGM groups are therefore working with the circumcisers, training them in farming and other occupations.[75]" suggest move to another section; this is not a reason why FGM is pursued.

• "Anti-FGM groups are therefore working with the circumcisers, training them in farming and other occupations." I think it's good to keep it there, after the sentence about them having no other way to earn a living.

As this is the subsection "Reasons for the practice" I don't think an anti-FGM group-related sentence should be here. Perhaps it could be moved to one of the opposition sub-sections? LT90001 (talk) 00:44, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

This specifically refers to the Neutral POV guidelines (WP:BALASPS) that states: "Note that undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements." This could be fixed by moving this sentence to another section. LT90001 (talk) 10:13, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

• • "While the likelihood of experiencing FGM increases with the Muslim population" -> "While the major religion in endemic countries is Islam," (as you go to mention Sauri Arabia and other muslim countries that have a high proportion of Muslims and do not have high rates of FGM)  Done

• "While the likelihood of experiencing FGM increases with the Muslim population ... " doesn't mean quite the same as "While the major religion in endemic countries is Islam ..." Will add "often increases" to account for places like Saudi Arabia. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:19, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Is there evidence to support this assertion? Have a look here. The majority religion of affected countries is Islam, but it doesn't seem like there is any evidence to support this assertion. LT90001 (talk) 00:44, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Changed to "Although common in predominantly Muslim countries, FGM is not a religious requirement, and Islamic scholars debate whether it is desirable or even permitted." SlimVirgin ^(talk) 06:07, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your change. I believe this would have otherwise violated the No Original Research policy (WP:STICKTOSOURCE). LT90001 (talk) 10:13, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Support from Women

• "her mutilation can affect a woman's " -> "a woman's mutilation can affect her"]  Done
  • Changed to "any change to the state of a woman's mutilation can affect her sense of ..."

• "women with FGM see themselves " -> "some women", surely not all.  Done
  • "Some" wouldn't look right, so changed to "may see themselves".

• "Masai Nilotes " only the Masai part is linked. Confusing.  Done
  • Included Masai Nilotes in the link.

• "Because women see FGM as a way of moving from girlhood to womanhood, and of differentiating between each other, historian Lynn Thomas writes that to remove FGM is also to remove that opportunity to gain authority.[84] Thus, argues Toubia, it is much harder to convince the women to give up FGM than it is the men.[82] Feminist opponents of FGM have attributed the women's support for it to false consciousness, the idea that people oppressed by certain social relations may not see the exploitation inherent in them.[85]" certainly an example of a POV fork. Suggest reword ->

I retract my assertion that this is a POV fork. LT90001 (talk) 11:02, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

• suggest -> "FGM may also be seen as an opportunity to gain authority, representing the transition from girlhood to womanhood. Thus women are often more intransigent supporters of FGM than men. " although this is a suggestion and not intended to be word-for-word what is used.
  • Suggest "false consciousness" sentence -> the section about international opposition or criticism of the western approach

• Didn't follow your point about an example of a POV fork, or why it needs to be reworded.
• The false consciousness sentence is needed here to offer a possible explanation for the support, from at least one point of view (I would say a fairly standard point of view). SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:32, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

I am uncomfortable that this sentence gets the last word; perhaps you could put this sentence "Thus, argues Toubia, it is much harder to convince the women to give up FGM than it is the men" as the conclusion of the paragraph (as it does give some symmetry and reflect the paragraph's topic). LT90001 (talk) 00:44, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

I believe the inclusion of this sentence as the last sentence in this paragraph gives undue weight to this argument (WP:BALASPS) and relates to the NPOV aspect of the GA criteria (WP:GACR). LT90001 (talk) 11:02, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

I believe that this synthesis of primary sources may represent original research. I refer to WP:PRIMARY, which states "Do not analyze, synthesize, interpret, or evaluate material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so.". I believe begin written from the perspective of barriers of removing FGM is not impartial. I refer to WP:IMPARTIAL, which states "Even where a topic is presented in terms of facts rather than opinions, inappropriate tone can be introduced through the way in which facts are selected, presented, or organized." LT90001 (talk) 11:02, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

 ::::Could you remove "the women's" -> "women's" to remove change the focus on "FGM women" to "women supporters of FGM" . LT90001 (talk) 00:44, 12 September 2013 (UTC) What would you say the main themes of this subsection are? I feel this subsection has three main themes: (1) some women practise this as a right of passage and moral integrity (2) there is entrenched support for FGM in some groups of women, and (3) ?cosmetic reasons. As it is, it's a little haphazard. Would like your thoughts.

If this is the case, then we could move the first sentence "Urologist Jean Fourcroy " to paragraph, 2, about entrenched support;

I have struck out these two points, as they are a matter of personal preference and also poorly and confusingly written (by me). LT90001 (talk) 11:02, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

On that note, "Urologist Jean Fourcroy writes that women in practising countries..." is a pretty broad brush, especially considering the religious diversity and decreasing rates in many countries. Is there a way to de-generalise this statement? LT90001 (talk) 00:44, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Specifically, I think this general statement is editorialising (WP:EDITORIAL) and stating opinion as fact (WP:NPOV). This relates to the NPOV criteria of the GA review (WP:GACR) LT90001 (talk) 11:02, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Kenyan female circumcision controversy

• I find the positioning of the sentence "Anika Rahman and Nahid Toubia write that attempts in the early 20th century by colonial administrators to halt FGM backfired.[92]" to give undue weight to this argument; this could be remedied by moving it to the end of the paragraph.
• I do not believe "Support for the practice came from the women themselves" to be impartial (WP:IMPARTIAL). This could be remedied by rewording this sentence as "Women were the primary supporters of the practice." This relates to the NPOV criteria of the GA review (WP:GACR)
• I believe ", but some as young as eight " to be sensationalising the point. This could be remedied by removal of "but".

African opposition

• As stated, I believe this section should be split into a historical and current opposition section. This relates to the 'well-written' criteria of the GA review.
• As a point of preference, 'feminist' could be linked (at present, only 'African feminists' is linked)
• The date "(1920–2006)" is inconsistent; see previous comments. This relates to the 'well-written' criteria of the GA review.
• "Rahman and Toubia write that African women from several countries led a vote to end the practice.[101]" For clarity, suggest add "At the conference." (personal preference). Ii also believe this is stating fact as opinion. This would be remedied by removal of the in-text attribution.
• Suggest link NGOs (personal preference)
• Suggest "After that" -> "Subsequently" (personal preference; less colloquial tone)
• The meaning of "was set up to persuade " is unclear. Was this overt or covert, a deliberate result, or an unintential onsequence. This relates to the well-written criteria of the GA review (WP:GACR)

International opposition

• This is one of the most well-written international law sections of an article I have seen, and flows very well.
• I believe “There are thought ” to be an unsupported attribution (WP:WEASEL), as although the sentence is attribute the people doing the thinking are not. This relates to the 'Verifiable' component of the GA criteria (WP:GACR)
• I feel this has an Anglo-American bias and fails to include law in India, Pakistan, any part of South America, China, and Russia. This relates to the 'broad' category of the GA criteria.
• I think the statistic of at-risk children in 1997 is now out of date. This is a matter of personal preference.

Criticism of Western Opposition

• "While African research also opposes FGM, she cautions that African feminists " I believe the lumping together of all African researchers and feminists to be an example of an Anglo-American bias. This could be remedied by including the qualifiers "many" and rewording "African research." This relates to the 'broad' and NPOV criteria of the GA review.
• "as if it were a plague" is an example of a cliche (WP:CLICHE). This could be remedied by including a direct quote, or re-wording this sentence. This relates to the well-written criteria of the GA.
• if "prisoners of ritual" is a quote, it should be quoted.
• "(as Hanny Lightfoot-Klein called them)" to be an example of synthesis from primary sources representing original research. This could be remedied by removing the parenthesised statement.
• "zero tolerance " -> "zero-tolerance". This relates to the well-writen criteria of the GA review.

Comparison with cosmetic procedures

• The statement "some physicians" is attributed but ambiguous (WP:WEASEL). This relates to the verifiable criteria of the GA.
• I believe the inclusion of 'important' in "important distinctions" to be editorialising.
• I believe "would seem to " is an example of a weasel word (WP:WEASEL) which could be resolved by removing the statement.

Kenyan Controversy Move

All right. I'm going to stop my review here because I'd like to hear your opinion about these last few sections, from Kenyan controversy onwards.

• Some of these sections are quite historical, which is a little confusing as the first part (beliefs for) and the last part (international criticism + western opposition) use current issues.
• The African opposition section is primarily about Egypt.
• It is a little non-standard for Med articles that history precedes support/opposition (or more active/current sections)
• I like the history section and think it gives good context. What would be your thoughts about moving it to the end, and combing it with Kenyan controversy and FGM in Egypt sections?

Having typed this up, I think the optimal solution would be:

• Retain "Support and Opposition" title
• Move "History" section to after this section.
• Move Kenyan controversy to history section
• Rename "in Africa" -> "FGM in Egypt" and move to history section
• Create new section "Opposition in Africa" and fill with current perspectives, place in the support and opposition section.

Would like to hear your opinion. As it is it's a little confusing.LT90001 (talk) 10:10, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

The Kenyan controversy section isn't about the history of FGM, but about the history of support and opposition within Africa, so I separated it from the history. The African section isn't primarily about Egypt: first and last paras are; otherwise not. I wouldn't want to see the history at the end (see my comments below about structure). I'll have another look at the structure, though. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:32, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll await your comments on the structure. The confusing part for me was reading about current perspectives, and then having some sections focus mostly on historical perspectives. If that could be changed I think it would make the article much clearer. LT90001 (talk) 23:33, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

My preference would be to have something like this structure, with the history at the top, which is how I normally write articles. The only reason history ended up in the middle was that it was moved recently to the end, and so as a compromise I placed it in the middle, i.e. at the top of the non-medical sections. I think in medicine articles, it might be assumed that the reader first wants the "meat" (the disease, its symptoms, its treatment) and is only interested in the history as an afterthought. But here, I think there are several areas that could be regarded as the "meat," so having history come after a discussion of the politics and culture seems upside down to me. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:35, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

My issue here is not that the history section is first, but that the Kenyan controversy is not included in the history section. This relates to the well-written criteria of the GA review (WP:GACR) and the Manual of Style guideline for text (WP:BODY), which states "Sections and subsections are introduced by headings. These headings clarify articles by breaking up text, organizing content, and populating the table of contents." LT90001 (talk) 10:30, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Secondly, it is my opinion that the failure to include relevant paragraphs about African history in the history section is an example of an Anglo-American bias (WP:NPOVFAQ). Reordering this could help protect neutrality (WP:STRUCTURE). LT90001 (talk) 10:30, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

References

Extremely comprehensive.LT90001 (talk) 11:46, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

In-text attribution

Another difference between science and humanities articles is the need for in-text attribution (Toubia writes). Scientists seem to prefer a summary of the facts, and offering attribution might signal a lack of confidence in the material. But in the humanities, that's what we want: a sweep of the literature, who said what, who has thought to point out which issues. It's particularly important here given the lack of agreement between the sources. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:47, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

This is certainly a valid point and it is very reasonable to make in-text attribution to the relevant speakers (MOS:QUOTE). However excessive reliance on primary source can give undue weight to certain viewpoints and may be an example of original research (WP:PRIMARY) and is not supported by Wiki's referencing guidelines (WP:SCHOLARSHIP), which state "Articles should rely on secondary sources whenever possible". There is also a risk with in-text attribution of presenting facts as opinions (WP:ASSERT). This issue relates to the verifiability and NPOV items in the GA review criteria (WP:GACR). LT90001 (talk) 10:46, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

In summary

In summary, this is an engaging and at-time confronting article that will certainly make it to GA. I will complete the review after we've resolved the discussion above; I hope this is not too much to take in, and wish you a lovely week. LT90001 (talk) 10:10, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the detailed review; it's very helpful. Just a note about style and structure: I haven't written this as a medical article, but as a humanities article (human rights, sociology, anthropology, with a medical component, of course). I haven't followed MEDMOS, which is why the history isn't at the end, though I've made a concession to it by not placing history at the top, which is where I'd normally put it. Section 3 (the health aspects section) is the medical section, and the rest, from history to the end, is the history/sociology/politics. I've used MEDRS-compliant sources for the medical information. It's worth noting that the complications section was written by Ekem, a gynaecologist. It has been edited since then, but the bulk of it is his. His edits are here and here.

Yep, I understand that. There's certainly no need to strictly follow any MOS for a GA. Wiki's an aggregative process edited by all and sundry, and I think it's the quality of the article that matters rather than authors' background or qualifications. LT90001 (talk) 23:33, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

I'll add more detailed responses to the subsections above, if that's okay; otherwise it may be hard to follow the replies. But if you prefer to move my responses out of those sections, that's fine by me. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:31, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, it's much easier to have the replies next to the changes made. LT90001 (talk) 23:33, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

GA criteria

I'm feeling some confusion regarding which points are preference issues, and which you see as violating the Good article criteria. In case it's helpful, there's a template at Template:GATable – produced by writing {{subst:GATable}} – and an essay, What the Good article criteria are not.

If you could signal which issues you feel violate the criteria, and why, that would help me to prioritize. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 05:03, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

I have done my best to substantiate my discussions and will shortly complete the review of the final three subsections. LT90001 (talk) 10:32, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Just a point about the MOS, which you've mentioned a few times. The GA criteria say the article should comply with: "the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation." And in a footnote: "Compliance with other aspects of the Manual of Style, or the Manual of Style mainpage or subpages of the guides listed, is not required for good articles" (emphasis in original). SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:01, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Summary of points raised so far

To make things easier to follow (I hope), I'm listing here the issues you say aren't preference only so they can be prioritized.

Lead

1. The lead is consistent with WP:LEAD in that it offers an overview of the key points. You wanted the barbers to be named as one type of traditional circumciser, but not the gedda or daya, so I'm confused on that point. I can't see any benefit, and the drawback is it makes the sentence longer and will have to be explained. I'm trying to avoid extra length in the lead.
2. MOSLIST: the sentence about the types isn't what we would call a list and I feel it's written correctly: "Type I is the removal of the clitoris (clitoridectomy) and clitoral hood, and Type II (excision) the removal of the clitoris and inner labia." If your preference is for: "Type I is X. Type II is Y. Type III is Z," I'd quite like to avoid that.
3. "Is gishiri cutting an example or a synonym?" The sentence now reads: "Type IV refers to procedures such as symbolic piercing of the clitoris, and cutting into the vagina to widen it, known as gishiri cutting."

Health aspects

• Criticism of the WHO classification. The sentence now reads: "The WHO classification has been criticized because it relies on reports from the women themselves; a 2006 study published in the British Medical Journal suggested that there is considerable under-reporting of the severity of the procedures, and that the WHO classification therefore reflects this."

History

• The spaced en dashes in the date formats are now consistent.

Reasons for the practice

• Now rewritten a little with additional refs: permalink.

Support from women

• Also rewritten a little: permalink.

Structure

• Kenyan controversy is part of the 20th-century history of the support and opposition, which is why it's in that section. I like having it next to the women's support section, because that's its main theme. See the final sentence of that section: that is why it's important.

In-text attribution

• You mentioned, in the discussion about this above, relying on primary sources. The article relies almost entirely on secondary sources (except in the sense that much of this, in the end, relies on self-reporting from the women and circumcisers in discussions with aid workers and anthropologists). As for presenting facts as opinions, yes, but I've tried to be careful about that, and there are precious few facts here. For example, I prefer: "According to a 2013 UNICEF study, the prevalence rate in Somalia is 98 percent." You might argue that, unless this is doubted, I should ditch the in-text attribution. But I want to keep it to show the reader where this comes from, and how up-to-date it is. This is especially important given that the sources fling all kinds of factoids back and forth, which is why they are so inconsistent. So the in-text is my way of pinning things down.

Have to pop off for a bit, so will continue this later. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:01, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Kenyan controversy section

1. "Rahman and Toubia write that attempts in the early 20th century by colonial administrators to halt FGM backfired." You say this is undue weight. In what sense?
2. "Support for the practice came from the women themselves" versus (your preference) "Women were the primary supporters of the practice." I prefer the former, in part because I don't know whether the women were the primary supporters.
3. "'but some as young as eight' to be sensationalising the point." I don't mind removing "but," but this is getting a bit micro. Eight-year-olds were cutting off each other's genitals. It's sensational with and without the "but."

African opposition

1. Splitting the section: it isn't long enough.
2. Date formats: this is how they are written per MOSDATE (not that we have to follow that here, but I do anyway).
3. "Rahman and Toubia write that African women from several countries led a vote to end the practice." I prefer the in-text. If I were to remove the in-text I'd want to hunt down a primary, or at least a closer, source.
4. "[A] domestic FGM Task Force was set up to persuade the government that medicalizing the procedure simply added physicians to the list of perpetrators." It was open and deliberate: it was set up to do that.

International opposition

1. There are thought to be 30,000: the source says: "Accurate figures are hard to come by, but France is thought to be home to up to 30,000 women who have been cut."
2. "I feel this has an Anglo-American bias and fails to include law in India, Pakistan, any part of South America, China, and Russia." I might add among some groups in South America in one of the other sections if I can find more detail. I'm not aware of it being an issue anywhere else. The main immigrant populations where this happens are the ones I mentioned, particularly France and UK because of the colonial history.

Criticism of Western opposition

1. "While African research also opposes FGM, she cautions that African feminists": I'll tweak it, but it's not Anglo-American bias. It's what the source, a Ugandan law professor, says.
2. "as if it were a plague" is what the source says. No need for quotation marks and not used as a cliche. He means that that is literally how Westerners have approached FGM (in his view) – as though it were a disease, disorder or medical issue. It isn't a medical issue, it's a cultural one, involving choices. That is his point.
3. "'(as Hanny Lightfoot-Klein called them)' to be an example of synthesis from primary sources representing original research." Sorry, I have no idea how that could be a SYN violation. What conclusion have I reached, never mind what conclusion that's not in the sources? (It's the name of a well-known book by Lightfoot-Klein.)
4. zero-tolerance fixed

Comparison with cosmetic procedures

1. "Some physicians" is what the source says. There are examples in the footnote and in the next sentence.
2. I believe the inclusion of 'important' in "important distinctions" to be editorialising." It isn't editorializing, it's just writing. There are, of course, important differences between FGM and cosmetic surgery on adults. I have to be allowed to state the obvious in my own words, based on my understanding of a couple of years' worth of reading the sources.
3. "Some of the legislation banning FGM would seem to cover cosmetic genital alteration." "Would seem to" is an example of a weasel phrase: how so? How would you write the sentence? We can't say it does cover it, because no one has arrested a plastic surgeon for FGM. We can't say it doesn't cover it, because the wording of the legislation would seem to. That is why so many sources are writing about this.

SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:59, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your attention. Could you please move your comments above to below each relevant change, as I am finding it very hard to keep track of issues and our previous discussions regarding each point. As this issue is taking an inordinate amount of my time and I am unprepared to go point-for-point with you, yet still feel this article relies too heavily on primary sources, and is occasionally non-neutral, I am asking for a new reviewer. I have posted a message to this regard on WikiProject Medicine here. Kind Regards, LT90001 (talk) 22:37, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Would you mind listing which primary sources you feel it relies on? There are very few primary sources in this article, and I can't think of any part of the article that relies on one. So I'm wondering if we're using the term differently.

As for asking for another reviewer, I saw you do that at another review, and it was explained there (as I recall) that the way to proceed is to pass or fail it, then I can repost it if you do the latter. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:50, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. I think I may have confused frustration with my currently excruciatingly slow internet with doing this review. I will get back to this review in a few days when it speeds up again. Kind Regards, LT90001 (talk) 10:29, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

You can ask for a second opinion whenever you want. However, it's hard to find people who will give them when the request is for the whole article rather than for a specific question. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:09, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Further reading section

I am of the opinion that we should not be a list of recommended movies / books about a topic per WP:NOT. I would recommend removing most of what is in this section. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 04:47, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

I think I remember reading somewhere that in such cases where the further reading section gets out of hand it might be appropriate to move all that content to its own page, and just leave a link in the further reading section. Lesion (talk) 09:40, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

And there is DMOZ that specializes in external links. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 21:59, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Notes and referencing

"Books and papers are listed in the Notes section and repeated below; agency reports, websites and news reports are in the Notes section only." --would it be good to merge these sections and have only one section called references? Lesion (talk) 09:40, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

I think the current setup is preferable, as it allows the full citation to be linked from the short form. -- Khazar2 (talk) 11:55, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it can allow it - but the problem with the setup in this article is that there is actually no link between the entries under "Notes" and those under "References". The point about systems such as Shortened footnotes is that the "Notes" section is kept relatively concise; you only need to give the long form once (under "References"), and templates are available to make links between them (these include {{sfn}} or {{harvnb}}). See for example Reston railway station#Notes (which is quite short but does have a variety of sources); Reading Southern railway station#Notes (which is bigger); or NBR 224 and 420 Classes#Notes (which passed GA review in substantially similar form). --Redrose64 (talk) 19:37, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Conclusion

I've regained internet access and would like to continue this review. I will briefly summarise this review process and provide a short conclusion.

Is this a good article? The prose is very well-written, the content tight and impactful. Sources are attributed and the article neutrally portrays the issue. However, at the same time this article also straddles the boundary between an article portraying a consensus opinion about a topic that is well-supported with primary sources, and an essay that makes use of original research to convey an implicit perspective about this issue.

If this article is being considered as a FA, I think it would be useful to have a discussion about the use of primary sources and whether this article conveys a world-wide perspective on the issue.

In seeking another reviewer, I felt that there was a complete impasse between myself and the nominee. However I can see numerous changes and it is clear that our discussion has produced some fruits, and I am happy to meet closer to the middle.

In totalis, I think that this article does meet the good article criteria. Given the recent changes to the article, I would like to wait several days for the editing to settle down before I complete this review.

I welcome feedback on this conclusion. LT90001 (talk) 08:36, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

I've given the article a much more cursory read, but it also appears to me ready for GA. FWIW, it also seems that the article is stable enough to pass (no edit wars, etc.), so I'd say go for it. Cheers, -- Khazar2 (talk) 18:43, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

I have concluded this review and updated the article to GA status. Well done to its creators and editors. LT90001 (talk) 12:25, 20 September 2013 (UTC)