Talk:Subsidies in Iran/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Jezhotwells (talk) 02:21, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

I shall be reviewing this article against the Good Article criteria, following its nomination for Good Article status.

Disambiguations: none found. Jezhotwells (talk) 02:29, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Linkrot: 6 found and tagged. Jezhotwells (talk) 02:29, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Checking against GA criteria

 * GA review (see here for criteria)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * make Iran less vulnerable towards new UN sanctions because of its nuclear program by reducing fuel imports needs rephrasing, clumsy prose
 * ' 'concurrently, save money for the Iranian people by ending a multi-billion dollar-a-year contraband as 17% of daily fuel production in Iran is smuggled abroad.[17][18] Due to subsidies, Iran had long had one of the cheapest gas prices in the world, 10 cents per liter or 40 cents per gallon;['' poor prose rephrase.
 * reduce waste and consumerism among the higher income strata that has enjoyed the same subsidies as the poor until now again poor prose.
 * increase social justice through targeted social assistance, since the richest decile of households benefits 12 times more from gasoline subsidies than the poorest decile; poor prose
 * On March 8, 2010, Iranian Parliament finally approved a $347-billion budget, based on a $20 billion allocation from subsidies cuts and $65 oil price. missing definite article.
 * As a compromise, the Iranian Parliament has granted Ahmadinejad's government the freedom to disperse the $20 billion worth of yearly subsidies over a six- or nine-month period, allowing larger individual cash payments that are on par with those that would have been made with a larger subsidy cut. Very poor and confusing.
 * This is very poorly written. Please get it copy-edited by someone with a good command of plain English. The WP:Guild of copyeditors may be able to help.
 * Ok, the prose is reasonable now. One thing that does need addressing is the bulleted lists.  these should be converted into prose as per MoS. Jezhotwells (talk) 14:17, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * 6 dead links as noted above.
 * The subsidy plan is one of the most important undertakings in  needs direct attribution.
 * Referenced well, sources appear to be RS, youtube links are official TV outlets, no OR
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * Good coverage, meets criteria
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * 1) 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):
 * Images licensed and captioned.
 * Hi! If I could just make a quick interjection, I'd disagree with 6b for just one, probably easily fixable reason: the first picture in the article, of a really colorful bus, goes totally without explanation. Basically, the caption should explain why that picture is there; will the subsidy plan increase the number of buses? Decrease that number? Increase the price of fuel? Decrease it? Whatever the reason, just make sure the image is justified with a caption pertaining to the article. Thanks! Bob Amnertiopsis ∴ChatMe! 04:36, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
 * That point appears to have bee answered now. Jezhotwells (talk) 12:30, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * On Hold for seven days for a thorough copy-edit. Jezhotwells (talk) 02:44, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, good improvements, just need the lists incorporating into prose now. Jezhotwells (talk) 14:20, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
 * That has been done, so I will pass this now. Congratulations! Jezhotwells (talk) 18:33, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, good improvements, just need the lists incorporating into prose now. Jezhotwells (talk) 14:20, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
 * That has been done, so I will pass this now. Congratulations! Jezhotwells (talk) 18:33, 14 March 2011 (UTC)