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

Reviewer: Jami430 (talk · contribs) 15:27, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

1. Well-written

I made a few copyedits, but it's clearly written (and is quite an enjoyable read). Thank you!

2. Verifiable

Yes. Good find on sources, especially for an underground group that was not covered much during its operations.

3. Broad in its coverage

Yes. It summarizes the relevant background in abortion law during the time period, documents history of the collective, legal ramifications, and legacy. It does an excellent job of adding links for further reading on the background material/history, keeping this article quite focused and succinct.

4. Neutral

Yes. The material is written in a factual way that represents the underlying sources (the ones I was able to access).

5. Stable

Yes. Few editors have contributed to the page since the GA nomination.

6. Illustrated

The nominator did a nice job finding a few images to illustrate the article. The topic is one that doesn't lend itself to photos, especially since the subject was a secret, underground, illegally-operating organization that would not have documented medical procedures in photos.

I think this article is a clear ✓ Pass. Well done; thank you for adding this to the encyclopedia. :) Jami430 (talk) 15:27, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jami430 thank you for taking the time to review it! I appreciate the copyediting. Enwebb (talk) 17:02, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]