Talk:Morocco

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Morocco/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

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)

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)

Official languages

Please change "Berber" to "Tamazight" (that is the official name for Berber in Morocco). Note that the term Berber is considered derogatory in North Africa and this name is no longer used officially by the government in Morocco. Also I would change the status to pending until July 1st when the constitution will be voted on. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.207.224.196 (talk) 02:54, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Alphax26, 25 July 2011

This is a page about Morocco. It should be used to present facts and only facts about the country. I found that some people (namely Tachfin) is using the page to advocate for the cause of the Berber minority. Refusing to mention that Morocco is part of the Arab world is absoluy reduculous. The section about the DNA is false (we are not in Germany 1942). Please don't use scientific studies to draw ideological conclusions. Also when you say that 18 million of Moroccans are Berber I hope you can show as some statistical reference not only an obscure book that no one can find. This is important to any claim, especially that ethnic statistics are forbidden in Morocco.

Best Alphax26 (talk) 22:12, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Dear Alphax26/Ouail

Please refrain from making wild accusations (see WP:AGF), as I did not write this article. My only contributions to it were related to correcting/adding general pop figures and reverting your vandalism/blind deletion of sourced material..

The sections you're referring to are heavily sourced. The one about the DNA has a very respectable source: the US National Library of Medicine. I suggest you find better sources to refute what you disapprove of.

As for "The Arab world", a vague term and a disputed political expression, lacking any substantial accuracy. "part of the Maghreb" is enough said and accurately describes the: geographical, geopolitical, cultural, historical, economic and linguistic affiliations of Morocco. (as a side note: Of all the Arab league member states articles, there isn't one which is described in its lead section as a part of the "Arab world", precisely because of the vagueness and disputed meaning of the term)

You've discredited yourself with some partisan/Un-Encyclopedic edits:

However, Arabs contributed by their great culture. (in the middle of a refed statement)

.

See: WP:NPOV WP:Disrupt.

Regards, Tachfin (talk) 17:59, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I am always open to good discussion. I have three remarks on the article: 1. In the article we read "Morocco has been inhabited by Berbers for at least the last 200,000 years"! I think we should erase "Berber" form this sentence because Homo sapiens and Neanderthal appeared ONLY 200,000 years ago. http://anthro.palomar.edu/homo2/mod_homo_4.htm and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neanderthal. 2. In the DNA section someone uses an article from the, US National Library of Medicine as a reference then draw his own conclusions that are not mentioned in the article. The article says "Recent studies make clear no significant genetic differences exist between Arabic and non-Arabic speaking populations... However, they imposed their culture and their religion". I doubt the author who published in the US National Library of Medicine would use the sentence #they imposed their culture and their religion#. 3. Many references are in French. I wonder how we are supposed to verify them. But maybe this acceptable!

(Response to unsigned comment)

1. Agreed.
2. Not sure what you mean but the source does say They imposed their culture and their religion [1]. I don't see anything pejorative in this, however I do not object to a more neutral rewording as Their culture and religion was adopted.
3. Many editors here speak French and there are translators available. EnWiki does not prohibit the use of non-English sources. WP:NONENG

PS1: Please do not edit my signed comments WP:TALKO

PS2: Don't forget to sign your comments

Regards, Tachfin (talk) 20:31, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Not done: I am declining this edit request because it does not request a specific change to the article. The edit request template is to be used for specific edits that the requester wishes to see (for instance, "Please change 'morocco' to 'Morocco' in paragraph three"), not for complaints about the article or vague "don't do this" statements. The proper venue for disagreement between editors is our dispute resolution process. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 17:58, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Is Amazigh official?

According to new constitution Amazight is second official language. But whether the new constitution has already entered into force? In the case of Burma, new constitution came into effect long after the referendum. So, there is no sources confirmed that new Moroccan constitution now in force, and according to the CIA Word Fact Book still old constitution is in force. Aotearoa (talk) 20:03, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it is. It entered into effect immediately after the referendum. This is confirmed by the official bulletin of the government that you can find at the official government website: [2]. I'll add a ref to that later. Tachfin (talk) 20:39, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Confirm, the new constitution entered into effect on 29 July 2011. As per the Dahir 91.11.1 of 29 July 2011, published on the same date in the official government bulletin which you can find here [3]. Tachfin (talk) 21:21, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I found French text too [4]. Aotearoa (talk) 06:59, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Arab spring

why some deleted about arab spring in the lead of the article ?? There are major protests ongoing in Morocco since 20 February ShenmueIII (talk) 18:25, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Just because there are protests doesn't mean it belongs in the lead. It's highly WP:UNDUE. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 22:26, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Intro

Just curious, but who are these 'neutral observers' in the sentence 'Parliamentary elections were held in Morocco on 7 September 2007, and were considered by some neutral observers to be mostly free and fair;' Vince (talk) 09:37, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Off topic material removed

An IP removed a large section from this article (correctly). The material seems possibly worthwhile for a different article, so I'm listing it here for review by anyone interested. (I'm no expert and cannot comment on the validity of the text). Manning (talk) 10:46, 28 January 2012 (UTC)