Contents

Talk:Morocco/GA1

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

Hi! I will be reviewing this article for GA status, and should have the full review up shortly. Dana boomer (talk) 23:57, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a(prose): b(MoS):

   • The lead needs to be expanded. For an article of this length it should be three to four paragraphs long, fully summarizing the article without presenting new information. References are generally not needed in the lead, except for extremely controversial statements, but this is up to the discretion of the individual editor.
   • The History section should be trimmed. It should be shortened to a maximum of 7-8 paragraphs and the excess information moved to the sub articles.
   • There are too many short sections that relate to politics, the judiciary and foreign relationships. These should be combined, and sub-sections should be utilized where appropriate.
   • The Transport section needs to be expanded - it cannot be simply a link to a main article.
   • The Affiliations section and Bilateral and multilateral agreements should be combined with the International organization affiliations section.
   • The Geography section has three very short subsections that need to be expanded or combined.
   • The third external link (Public Services) deadlinks.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a(references): b(citations to reliable sources): c(OR):

   • The major issue that this article has is the lack of references. Entire sections are lacking references, including many areas of specific facts and non-widely known information. Correcting this with reliable sources will take a significant amount of time and work.
   • Other language Wikipedias, such as the Persian (current ref #9) and Turkish (current ref #10) ones, are not acceptable references for an English language Wikipedia article.
   • Current ref #21 (Profile on Morocco) deadlinks.
   • Current ref #28 (Genetic structure of north-west Africa revealed by STR analysis) deadlinks.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a(major aspects): b(focused):

   • See the comments on sections that need to be expanded in the first section above.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   • The main editors may want to check the significant editing that was done by IP editors recently.

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a(images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b(appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

I'm afraid I'm going to have to fail this article's GA nomination. There is too much work that needs to be done with organization and referencing. The article has potential, but needs a large time investment before it can be of GA status. If you have any questions, please bring them to my talk page. Dana boomer (talk) 00:41, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]