Talk:Architecture of Casablanca

GA pointers

The Good Article review has now been closed. Here are some pointers as to what to work on in order to get the article ready for another nomination.

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

2. Is it verifiable with no original research?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:

   C. It contains no original research:

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

The prose is dense and clunky, making it hard to read, and contains errors, such as "consonant" in place of what I assume should be "consistent". There are a number of single sentence paragraphs which impede reading flow, and give the article a messy, unfinished appearance. Consider what the sentence is about - if it is about something that is already mentioned in an existing paragraph, then it is likely to belong somewhere in t hat paragraph. If it is about something new and different, consider if one sentence gives enough information, or if more detail is required. If the sentence is about one thing, and there is no more to say about that thing, consider if that thing is really important enough to mention at all, given that there is so little to be said about it. Aim: to proof read or copy-edit the article to ensure readability, and that there are no single sentence paragraphs. The Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors can assist with this, but ONLY when the article is in a much better state than it is now. Tidy and build the article first. Then when you feel it is ready, request assistance from the Guild.

The lead should be a summary of the main article. Essentially, everything significant in the article should be mentioned briefly in the lead, and everything mentioned in the lead should also be in the main body, usually described in greater detail and with more information. "International Congress of Modern Architecture" is mentioned in the lead, but I can't find it in the main body. We like the lead to include all the significant details, but to be summarised briefly, generally in around three of four paragraphs. AIM: to read WP:Lead and look at examples of good leads, then tidy up existing lead.

The layout should present the information in an organised, tidy, and readable manner. We discourage one paragraph sections or sub-sections is it impedes readability and gives an off-putting appearance. We discourage too many images. A few well chosen images are good. Too many is overwhelming and untidy. We also prefer that images are placed within the section that talks about them, and that they do not spill out into sections above or below. We also prefer that images are on side only, or evenly distributed on both sides - usually alternating. Aim: cut down the amount of images - selecting only the best examples which are described in the main text.

The Notable buildings and structures section is a bare list, which we discourage in articles. If those buildings are notable, they should be written about in order to inform the reader why they are notable, and why they have been included in the article. This is not a List of notable buildings in Casablanca, but an article on the Architecture of Casablanca. Consider if all the buildings on that list need to be mentioned. A few significant examples of the local architecture are sufficient, and preferable to a long list of buildings. Aim: to turn the list into prose.

There is a list of references. However, the Further reading section is conventionally placed after the References section.

I have not checked the references, nor looked for original research or copyright violations. That research takes up time, particularly on a subject as complex as this. I have not looked to see if the article covers all the main points of the topic as that would require further research. However, I query if the GAMMA section needs to be that detailed. While there is material on Casablanca architecture, there is also rather more general and what appears to be off-topic details. I have not looked into neutrality or bias.

The article is stable - it is largely the work of one editor, User:إيان, who is commended for his enthusiasm and energy.

I have not checked the copyright status of the articles, nor their relevance to the article - there is rather a lot of them.

There are rather a lot of red links. Are they all pointing to potential articles, or are they pointing to hopeful articles. For example are Casa Marina, Anfa Park, and Casanearshore, notable enough business parks to be stand alone articles on Wikipedia?

See Buildings and architecture of Bath for a good example of how to write an article about the architecture of a city. The prose flows and is readable. The article is well organised. Aim: to study articles such as Buildings and architecture of Bath as models for best practise.

I wish User:إيان good luck in progressing this article. I'd be quite happy to review it for GA when the work has been done. SilkTork (talk) 11:56, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Villa Camembert 24.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 03:52, 6 January 2022 (UTC)