Template:Did you know nominations/Going to Tehran


 * The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as |this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: rejected by Yoninah (talk) 21:17, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

copyediting and neutrality issues

Going to Tehran

 * ... that in Going to Tehran, it is argued that issues between Iran and the United States cannot be resolved by isolating, strangling, bombarding, dislodging or waiting for Iran to fall?


 * ALT1:... that in Going to Tehran, it is argued that the United States government must consider Iran as a strategic partner?

Created by Saff V. (talk). Self-nominated at 08:20, 21 February 2016 (UTC).


 * Comment Hooks didn't really make sense, so I've rewritten them. Edwardx (talk) 19:03, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Symbol possible vote.svg Pretty much the same thing applies as at Template:Did you know nominations/Kashf al-Asrar, where I just left a review. Please dedicate some time to balance the article as well as improve the grammar. I feel it'll be futile to do a full review until at least those basic concerns are addressed. —♦♦ AMBER  (ЯʘCK)  21:56, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I added the article for copyediting. I am improving the article.Saff V. (talk) 06:00, 15 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Which parts of the article are unbalance?Saff V. (talk) 08:43, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Because it is really hard to argue that everybody is just falling in line because of this book. Many Americans are vehemently opposed to reestablishing political ties with Iran, and I find it highly unlikely that this book has gotten nothing but a positive reception from everybody. —♦♦ AMBER  (ЯʘCK)  15:36, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Copy editor of the article must do your comments.Saff V. (talk) 21:09, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Saff V., you will need to provide a QPQ for this nomination. Now would be a good time, while we wait for the GOCE to start work on your request. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:04, 23 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Symbol delete vote.svg The requested copyedit at GOCE was abandoned. As Twofingered Typist, the editor there, noted: "The rest of the article is written in such a way that its meaning is unclear and defies copy editing in its present form." Having read the article now myself, that includes the Context and Reviews sections I have to agree; both sectinos have severe prose issues and, now that I've read the New York Times review by Laura Secor, neutrality issues as well. The review is quite critical of the book, but until I read it I thought, based on the Wikipedia article, it was a favorable review. As Amberrock noted over two weeks ago, the article was not balanced because it was wholly positive toward the book. Further, the sixth cite, credited to Lasswell, takes me to a journal paper by Hillary Mann Leverett, which shouldn't be used to cite a paragraph making conclusions about reviews on a book written by her and her husband. In all, the article is in such problematic shape, even after further edits by the author, that the nomination should be closed; this is too far from being ready for DYK to continue. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:54, 26 March 2016 (UTC)