Talk:Israel–Morocco normalization agreement/GA1

GA Review

edit

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

Nominator: Mr. Lechkar (talk · contribs) 03:20, 2 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Reviewer: SSSB (talk · contribs) 22:15, 27 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

I'll take this one on. Should be interesting. SSSB (talk) 22:15, 27 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose, spelling, and grammar):   b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):  
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable, as shown by a source spot-check.
    a (reference section):   b (inline citations to reliable sources):   c (OR):   d (copyvio and plagiarism):  
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects):   b (focused):  
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:  
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:  
  6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales):   b (appropriate use with suitable captions):  
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:  

Comments

edit

Needs rectifying for promotion

edit

Other suggestions

edit
  • "a joint declaration was signed pledging to quickly begin direct flights," The word quickly is incredibly vague. Either cut the word quickly (becuase it doesn't really add anything), or specify a time frame. SSSB (talk) 06:30, 28 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
  • "of which hundreds of them were killed," This sentence doesn't flow very well. It also lacks precision. Could possibly be reworded to "700 of whom were killed". SSSB (talk) 06:30, 28 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
  • There is no need to cite the BBC source (source 10) twice in the final paragraph of the background section. Citing them once at the end of the final paragraph is fine. SSSB (talk) 07:37, 28 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
  • I would recommened restructructing the background section to improve flow. I would change up the first three paragraphs so that it is in chronological order: "Prior to Israel's establishment in 1948, Morocco had a large Jewish population of about 250,000 to 350,000 Jews (10% of the population) and hundreds of thousands of Israeli Jews have lineage that traces to Morocco. During the 1973 Yom Kippur War, Moroccan soldiers, of which hundreds of them were killed, formed part of the Arab expeditionary forces supplying Egypt and Syria. The two countries establishing low-level, informal diplomatic relations during the 1990s following Israel's interim peace accords with the Palestinians, which were suspended after the start of the Al-Aqsa Intifada(→) in 2000. The two countries have maintained informal ties since then, with an estimated 50,000 Israelis traveling to Morocco each year although by 2020 the Jewish population in Morocco had decreased to approximately 2,000." flows better, I think. It feels less like a collection of disconnected statements. Similarily, the last two paragraphs of this section could probabaly benefit by becoming one parapgraph, just so that it feels more connected as a section, rather than a list of statements. SSSB (talk) 07:37, 28 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
  • The others section could benefit with a few more countries. Possibly from some other major western powers, or other muslim majority countries. Also possibly from religous leaders. SSSB (talk) 14:20, 28 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
  • This article is very quote heavy. There are lots of quotes here which I don't think need to be quotes. SSSB (talk) 14:33, 28 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Final comments

edit

Mostly good. A few details that need adressing before promotion, but nothing major. Placing on hold. SSSB (talk) 14:20, 28 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Mr. Lechkar, reminder ping. -- asilvering (talk) 17:04, 7 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
Hello, please check with the changes made in the most recent revision. Mr. Lechkar (talk) 18:33, 9 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Mr. Lechkar. You missed one of my points; the prose needs to explain why Coleamns's and Inhofoe's opinions are relevant within the prose. Also, can you please explain why the states (or parties, now I think of it) of US senator's are relevant. Because if they are not relevant, they shouldn't be mentioned. SSSB (talk) 20:40, 12 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Mr. Lechkar, reminder ping. It has been 10 days. If you don't address these concerns this week, I may be forced to fail this nomination at this time. SSSB (talk) 07:39, 23 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
@SSSB: After analyzing your comments further, I hastily managed to add context based on sources which were already cited along with their statements ([2], [3]), adding brief descriptions as can be found here. I also removed the brackets mentioning the states and parties of the senators. Please let me know if this is sufficient enough or if any further changes are needed. Mr. Lechkar (talk) 17:28, 24 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Mr. Lechkar I'm happy to pass this article. Congratulations. SSSB (talk) 22:13, 24 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.