Talk:Architecture of Casablanca/GA1

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 Review

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

Reviewer: Vami IV (talk · contribs) 20:23, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Opening statement

Hello, and come what may from this review, thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. During the review, I may make copyedits, which I will limit to spelling correction and minor changes to punctuation (removal of double spaces and such). I will only make substantive edits that change the flow and structure of the prose if I previously suggested and it is necessary. The Nominator(s) should understand that I am a grammar pedant, and I will nitpick in the interest of prose quality. For responding to my comments, please use Done, Fixed, Added, Not done, Doing..., or Removed, followed by any comment you'd like to make. I will be crossing out my comments as they are redressed, and only mine. A detailed, section-by-section review will follow. –♠Vami _IV†♠ 20:23, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Disclaimer: I am not very knowledgeable on the nation of Morocco or Islamic architecture, but expect that to change by the time this review is concluded. It is my philosophy in writing articles and reviewing them that they should engender in the reader a full understanding of their topic, and for that reason and because the African continent is undercovered on English Wikipedia, I choose to take up this review. –♠Vami _IV†♠ 20:23, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pre-prose review

~~There are two "Further reading" sections.~~

Fixed إيان (talk) 01:13, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed the nominator is mentioned three times (as of time of writing this) as a translator of some of the sources used. I do not think this is COI, but want to note it anyway.

Sorry if I should have declared this previously. It's just the one source—Modern Casablanca Map. Sources 36 and 55 are the same source. Is there a bot that can fix this? إيان (talk) 01:13, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to count this off since all you did was translate the work into English. There would be COI if you had actually written that source. –♠Vami _IV†♠ 02:50, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cool. I'm also involved with MAMMA. and Casamémoire as a volunteer, if I should mention this too. إيان (talk) 04:13, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~There are a lot of redlinks in the article; if at all possible, could you turn them into inter-language links? I see a couple already in the article.~~

Done Léandre Vaillat, Moroccan Nationalist Movement, Agence urbaine de Casablanca, and Marius Boyer to ILL. إيان (talk) 01:13, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There are still a lot of redlinks without ILLs. Is there just no article to link to for those? –♠Vami _IV†♠ 04:00, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I've checked—those were the only ones I could find. I redlinked a lot of stuff that should have articles to map out knowledge gaps, motivated by this talk at WikiArabia in Marrakesh last year. إيان (talk) 04:13, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rad. –♠Vami _IV†♠ 06:21, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~I highly doubt that File:Koubba de Sidi Belyout.jpg is a self work.~~

Fixed Fixed the info for that public domain postcard on the page on Commons. إيان (talk) 01:13, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~Citation [63] needs full syntax; a bare URL is not enough.~~

Done إيان (talk) 01:13, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~Citation [64] also needs expansion.~~

Done إيان (talk) 01:13, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Have you considered adding date ranges for each architectural period, like with other "Architecture of [City]" articles? –♠Vami _IV†♠ 04:32, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

The lead is too short. It should be three or four paragraphs long, and in this case briefly explore the architectural history of the city of Casablanca with some select edifices and monuments as examples of certain styles and periods.

I've developed the lead a bit, but I'm not satisfied with it. Feel free to tear it apart. I will probably tweak it a bit too.إيان (talk) 19:08, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We will come back to the lead. –♠Vami _IV†♠ 04:09, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

GA progress

CopyVio scanner revealed a 51.6% likelihood of copyright violation for two sources. Here they are: One and Two. Please change the wording here unless these two sources were written after this article was. –♠Vami _IV†♠ 20:23, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can tell, these pages contain text copied from previous versions of the article Casablanca, where I built some of the content that I have since moved to the article Architecture of Casablanca. إيان (talk) 04:19, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Okay then, marking this off as a pass on CopyVio. –♠Vami _IV†♠ 04:50, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The images used in the article are all relevant to them and, with the exception above, are free or tagged. –♠Vami _IV†♠ 20:23, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Good Article review progress box

Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV ()

3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant ()

Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

@Vami IV and إيان: Just checking some older reviews. It looks like a month since progress was made on this. Are we close to finishing? AIRcorn (talk) 22:56, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Vami IV and إيان: This review has been open for three months with little progress. There has been no involvement at all for two months, and it's been a month since Aircorn queried progress, for which there was no response. I've looked at the article and, to be fair to the nominator, there is little point in dragging this out any further as the article is not yet at GA standard, and in my experience there is too much to do to bring it up to standard in a reasonable time. It would be better to close this now with some pointers as to how the article can be improved, and then when the work has been done, to nominate again. With the agreement of (or lack of objection from) Vami_IV, I can take over this review, give the pointers needed for improvement, and close it down. And then everyone can get on with enjoying Wikipedia without this review lurking in the background (I know how that feels!) SilkTork (talk) 10:37, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Was hoping the nominator would respond since the last ping, by Aircorn, since I did leave additional comments some time ago. I'll just close this review. –♠Vami _IV†♠ 10:39, 24 November 2020 (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.