Template:Did you know nominations/Iranian underground missile bases


 * 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: promoted by Allen3 talk 15:14, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Iranian underground missile bases

 * ... that according to the commander of the IRGC AF, there are underground missile bases in all the provinces and cities of Iran at a depth of 500 meters ready for launch at the Supreme Leader's order?


 * Reviewed: Foreign Direct Investment in India

Created by بلده (talk). Nominated by Mhhossein (talk) at 07:29, 18 October 2015 (UTC).


 * Symbol delete vote.svg Article has been thoroughly and exhaustively reviewed and is found lacking, to wit: (1) Hook-2 - content is not interesting, and, (2) Article-3 - content is not neutral; it appears to intentionally frame alleged Iranian ballistic missiles as offensive weaponry, enforcing an idea advanced by some elements in contemporary U.S. political discourse of an "expansionist" Iranian state (the numerous userboxes this relatively new editor has placed on their userpage is not sufficient to overcome this concern). Further, the RS of Xinhua and Trend News Agency merits scrutiny. LavaBaron (talk) 11:59, 18 October 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, but can any one explain what LavaBaron really means? The hook is so interesting to be repeated by numerous reliable sources, one could easily get it by a simple search through those news outlets some of which are used as references to this article. The reviewer would better exactly say which part of the article is not neutral and why (the reviewer has made some general comments!). Finally, I can't understand how my user page "is not sufficient to overcome this [which I don't understand] concern." The article is merely reflecting the facts presented by the sources. There's also an analysis section. I would add any other views if there existed! Mhhossein (talk) 12:57, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
 * IMO, the tone of this article presupposes Iranian ballistic missiles are offensive weapons, when there is a wide body of contention (e.g. Ken Waltz, et. al.) that advances the idea that Iranian ballistic missiles are a necessary power balancing technology (Ali Akbar Velayati, himself, has referred to them as "defensive weapons"). One-third of the article relies on a quote from an IDF official expressing fear of a "surprise attack," which - without any balancing statement - simply plays into an Islamophobic trope. This article seems to attempt to make Iran look like some kind of cartoon villain with secret bunkers inside volcanoes on skull-shaped islands. LavaBaron (talk) 13:11, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Those sources (Xinhua and Trend News Agency) were replaced by The Guardian! Mhhossein (talk) 13:09, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Symbol redirect vote 4.svg Given that the issue of Xinhua and Trend has been addressed, I withdraw my DYKno - while maintaining my strenuous objections about neutrality and interest-level - and defer to a new editor to review. LavaBaron (talk) 13:18, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

I made a minor copyedit to the hook and, after spending a few days mulling it over, I think this is probably fine and retract my concerns. Good to go. LavaBaron (talk) 00:31, 3 November 2015 (UTC)