Talk:Israel–Morocco normalization agreement/GA1

GA Review

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)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
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):
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
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):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

Comments

Page history and talk page indicate long term stability. SSSB (talk) 22:30, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Earwig's Copyvio Detector shows 84%, but this is due to a couple of long quotes. Not plagarism. SSSB (talk) 22:30, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can't access the Haaretz source, but the content is verified through other sources. SSSB (talk) 06:30, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Needs rectifying for promotion

In the caption: "Moroccan walls in the territory of Western Sahara,", this should be past tense "walled" as it refers to something that happened in the Western Saharan War. SSSB (talk) 22:30, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Citation 1 needs fixing. It currently takes me to essay's about Shakepeare's Richard III. This means that the claim of 350,000 jews in Morocoo is currently uncited. The 10% and 250,000 are cited, so worst comes to worst, you can just remove the 350,000 reference. SSSB (talk) 06:30, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Moroccan soldiers, of which hundreds of them were killed, formed part of the Arab expeditionary forces supplying Egypt and Syria." not what the cited source says. The cited source says that they formed part of the Syrian army's Northen flank and fought Israeli forces in southern Syria. It doesn't mention supporting Egypt and that they merely supplied Egypt and Syria. SSSB (talk) 06:30, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Based on what this articles says: [1] it should be mentioned that it has been suggested that US improving econimic and trade links with Morocco is part of the agreement. SSSB (talk) 12:34, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"According to Kushner: "They are going to ..."" who does "they" refer to. I assume either Morocco or Israel? SSSB (talk) 12:34, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"On December 22, 2020, the Senior Adviser to the President, Jared Kushner", we have already established Kushner's role. If you are going to restate it, you must specifiy Amercian president. SSSB (talk) 14:20, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Moroccan royal cabinet issued a press release regarding a phone call between King Mohammed VI and Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas." There should be a comma at the end of this sentence, not a full stop. Otherwise it looks like an independent statement, whereas the next sentence talks more about this call. SSSB (talk) 14:20, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"US Senator Ted Cruz (R-Texas)" Republician should be written out in full and wikilinked for the benefit of non American readers. I'm not convinced his state his relevant. SSSB (talk) 14:20, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It needs to be established why the opinions of Cotton, Coleman or Inhofe are WP:DUE. For Coleman and Inhofe it is given in the source. But I can't see any reasn why Cotton's opinion matters. SSSB (talk) 14:20, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your quote of the Egptian president does not match this source. SSSB (talk) 14:20, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Palestinian Islamist organizations and designated as " should be "are designated as"? SSSB (talk) 14:20, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Source 15 needs expanding. SSSB (talk) 14:21, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Other suggestions

"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

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]