Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Morocco/1

Morocco

 * • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
 * Result: Delist per consensus below. Geometry guy 22:40, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I hate to bring a newly promoted article to GA Reassessment almost immediately, but this one is in a poor state and requires quite extensive improvements. For starters many sections, including "Politics", "Culture" and the highly controversial "Western Sahara status" have zero references and many others have only one or two. In addition, a large number of the references that do exist are simply raw URLs. The ssection "International organization affiliations" has no context and is simply a lick of ackronyms. There are also several fair use images dotted through the article with weak or absent justification. Aside from these massive problems, the article's prose and structure could use work in places, but with such a lack of references it is hard ot be sure that the subject has been given proper coverage. I have notified the reviewer, and I hope that people responding here can perhaps provide constructive criticism that will help in the future.--Jackyd101 (talk) 22:17, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * NB: the article failed a GA review just three weeks ago and doesn't seem to have been significantly improved before it was renominated. See Talk:Morocco/GA1.--Jackyd101 (talk) 22:20, 18 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment I agree with Jackd101. There are far too few citations for sentences that need them. And the History section is too long, as there is a history subarticle. The organisation of section also needs a lot of work, the MoS is not followed in many places, and there is an over reliance on (unsourced) lists. The whole page is nowhere near GA, and needs a complete overhaul to get there. At minimum, everything in the GA1 review and the earlier GAR that lead to delisting needs addressing. Until then, delist  Yob  Mod  11:40, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Delist I agree with the above. Many sections are just large collections of links rather than proper prose. Better sources could also have been used; there's too heavy reliance on tertiary sources like Britannica. Lampman (talk) 12:07, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. I have notified the nominator. Geometry guy 20:36, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I believe we have sufficiently adressed the problems mentioned in the first review. The history section still needs some work, but not to the degree of making the article ineligible for a GA status.MassNssen (talk) 09:06, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I disagree. The majority of the problems identified in the review were not fixed, as even a cursory check will show.
 * "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" is from the GA1 review, and does not seem to have been acted upon at all.
 * Are you claiming that entire sections are not lacking sources, when we can all see that they do? What about the sections that are only lists, with no prose or sources - they do not exist?
 * "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" - this was clearly also not done.
 * There are still dead-linking citations that were pointed out in the GA1 review.
 * Expansion of many sections was not done.
 * The lead is still too short, and does not summarise the article.
 * None of the above are new criticisms. Ignoring a review and resubmitting at GAN until you get a poor reviewer to pass an article is does not benefit an article or wikipedia. Yob  Mod  10:35, 21 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Delist. I am the editor who completed the first GA review (on the GA1 page), so I'm not sure if I have a conflict of interest in commenting/voting here. I still agree with most of my comments from my first review, and think that this article needs some serious work before it becomes of GA status. The History section has been significantly shortened, but now contains too many short sections, some of which should probably be combined. However, these are two of the more minor issues in my review. I will repeat what I said from that first review - "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". Also:
 * The Administrative divisions section and the Regions and prefectures section are largely duplicative of each other.
 * As pointed out above, the International organization affiliations "introductory paragraph" is just a list of acronyms, with absolutely no introduction or sentance structure. This entire section (with its subsections) needs to be more prose and less list.
 * Current ref #27 still deadlinks.
 * Why is there a Languages section and then a Ethnic groups and languages subsection within the Culture section?
 * Many of the web references are still lacking publisher and access date information, and some are even missing titles.
 * There is a heavy reliance on tertiary sources such as Britannica and Encarta, which I believe are indicative of the overall sourcing problems. These sources are OK for simple information and minor use, but not for the amount of information that they are supposed to be sourcing in this article.
 * If I am COI'd out from actually voting in this reassessment, please feel free to change my "delist" to "comments". Dana boomer (talk) 13:31, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
 * GAR is not a vote, and all comments on whether the article meets the criteria or not are welcome. Comments from reviewers who have studied the article in detail are particularly helpful. The recommendation (in this case "delist") provides your conclusion based on your analysis, and is useful information. Geometry guy 18:50, 21 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Delist. I drop my request. We will workout the issues listed here before resubmitting the article. Thanks, everyone, for your time and attention.MassNssen (talk) 10:37, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Proposal to close. I propose that this reassessment be closed in 24 hours unless objections are raised (the recent GAN reviewer was notified by Jackyd). Geometry guy 18:56, 22 October 2009 (UTC)