Template:Did you know nominations/Morteza Avini


 * 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  MPJ  -DK 01:35, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Morteza Avini

 * ALT1: ... that Morteza Avini (pictured), Iranian filmmaker, photographer, author and journalist, was entitled "the master of martyred literati" by supreme leader of Iran, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei?
 * Reviewed: José Plácido de Castro

5x expanded by Mhhossein (talk). Nominated by Mhhossein (talk) at 13:56, 20 June 2016 (UTC).
 * Symbol possible vote.svg Prose size (text only): 6984 characters (1165 words) "readable prose size"; 5x expansion by Mhhossein since 13 June 2016 (when it was 896); English inline citations appear OK, however many are in Persian (I cannot check). Image seems appropriate (although not necessary) and free of copyvio. The prose is rfeadable if not good. However, my main concern is that the article is not balanced and objective and therefore violates the NPOV criterion. For example, in the book cited in the Talattof reference 6, there is a section dealing with criticism of Avini - for example on page 182 it talks about Behnoud's accusations that Avini had been a drug addict. If there was debate and criticism about Avini, it should be included. The current article reads a bit like a "life of the saint" (or in this case, "Martyr"). The hook can be imnproved - a suggestionm is ALT: 2. This is my first review.
 * ALT2: ...that Iranian filmmaker Morteza Avini, who was blown up by a landmine in 1993, was named "the master of martyred literati" by supreme leader of Iran Ayatollah Ali Khamenei?
 * Byronmercury (talk) 15:13, 29 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Looking at a first review, as requested, I changed the symbol to the neutral question mark (from the "rather not" slash which was possibly not intended, - revert if it was) . I also moved ALT2 to the post of the reviewer, because yes it's mentioned, but better to also see who worded it. It is a subset of ALT1, so doesn't require a different reviewer. I also added (pictured), we can't expect a prep-builder to take it over from a different hook when promoting ALT2. I will look at the review now. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:42, 29 June 2016 (UTC)


 * I read and made minor changes in formatting (repeat last name every new section, let image look "into" the text, link the first time, combine short sections). I think the article should go through copyediting, - a phrase such as "By the Islamic revolution of Iran, he joined cinema and started his artistic career" seems unclear. You could request that at WP:GOCE, let's have a look again afterwards. There's no rush to meet a certain date. As for POV: this is just DYK, not GA or FA, completeness is not required. The article should of course always say "is regarded as a martyr" (and by whom), not "is a martyr". Mhhossein, could you please make sure that is followed? (I have no time to read every line.) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:01, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you Byronmercury and Gerda Arendt for the review and for the raised points. I checked the article and there's no such thing as "is a martyr" and it's emphasized that he was entitled and regarded as martyr. I'll make a request at WP:GOCE and will let you know when ever the case is addressed by them. Mhhossein (talk) 17:26, 29 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Gerda Arendt, I have restored Byronmercury's original icon above, as it was correct. NPOV is a very important DYK criterion and should never be ignored; this isn't an issue of completeness but of balance, and sufficiently serious that the "?" icon is not appropriate since it isn't a simple fix. Also, many of Mhhossein's DYK nominations have run into NPOV issues, with a number of rounds of edits required before the reviewer has been satisfied. The GOCE copyedit may well not address the neutrality issue, especially if doing so requires finding new sources. Finally, this review did not cover the QPQ requirement, and Mhhossein needs to supply one as he has well over five DYK nominations to his credit. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:29, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
 * BlueMoonset: I meant to perform a review to cover the QPQ requirement. By the way, those "many DYK nominations," as evidenced, later emerged to be not that problematic as alleged by the reviewers (just see the nomination process of them). You are ignoring the inherent biased approach of some users, when it comes to I-P and middle east articles. As ever, I'm ready to resolve any issue specifically mentioned by the reviewers. Mhhossein (talk) 17:48, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I just took a closer look at the image, which I like a lot, and I'm not sure that the public domain declaration for the photo is valid. It's a photo of a wall painting, and Iran does not, so far as I can tell, allow freedom of panorama, which would mean that the original artist still holds copyright unless it's a very old painting that is itself in the public domain. (I very much doubt that the photo is by the artist, given the other photos uploaded.) Chris Woodrich, could you please comment on whether the image is allowable at DYK? (Even if not, might there be a non-free justification for keeping it in the article?) Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:52, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Definitely still in copyright. A photograph would be better for fair use, as the painting is highly idealized. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 04:20, 8 July 2016 (UTC)


 * I have removed the image from the nomination. It also seems to me, Chris Woodrich, that as long as the image is in the article, as it is still in copyright, that we cannot promote the nomination, because it would be on the main page with a copyvio image in it. Correct? BlueMoonset (talk) 23:52, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you, do you think we can make use of this photo instead? Mhhossein (talk) 14:39, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
 * No, because there is no indication who took the underlying photograph (i.e. the object being photographed). Rephotographing something does not grant one copyright over it. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 14:44, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Chris Woodrich: How about this one, considering that Tasnim releases its content under CC per the text at the bottom of the page? Mhhossein (talk) 15:14, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Better. We just need to see if Tasim created the image; I don't see any credit line. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 15:23, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you Chris Woodrich, and how about this one and the photos uploaded here? Thanks. Mhhossein (talk) 19:07, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I can't open the source for Avini2. The Flickr one seems to be a series of screenshots. If that's the case, the uploader probably doesn't have the right to release it under a free license. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:04, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid, not all those photos on Flickr were screenshots! btw, this's the link to Avini2 and you may also consider this one. Mhhossein (talk) 05:39, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
 * All of those Flickr photos are listed as having been taken in 2002 or later, and Avini died in 1993. The photographer cannot, therefore, be the one who created the original images. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:42, 13 July 2016 (UTC)


 * The article underwent a rather comprehensive copy edit. Also, I added some new materials and tried to address the concerns raised by the reviewers. Besides, I found a photo of Avini which is recently uploaded by the photographer Ehsan Rajabi, according to the description page. The photo is also seen on his personal website. --Mhhossein (talk) 12:39, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

I think this is an important article but I see numerous issues with it and said so on the talk page. Article's formal issues are: Article's content issues: Hook ALT2 :
 * language is at times unencyclopedic, unusual terms are used without quotation marks, some sentences are wrongly constructed.
 * There are unsourced claims that appear to be very important.( US stay, studies)
 * plain unclear: there are facts alluded to, that actually need expansion. (US stay, studies)
 * Half the references are to Bookroom.ir in Persian.
 * almost all references are undated, and no pages given, ie incomplete referencing.
 * WP:NPOV: I dont think the article is neutral. It has a slant towards glorifying the subject. Part of this may be the one-sided sources.
 * WP:UNDUE: The subsection 'Style' is unbalanced. Three quarter is referenced to one work by a certain redlinked Agnes Devictor, with a source that is a dead link.
 * Doesn't appear interesting to me, but entirely predictableWuerzele (talk) 03:26, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I found much of your points unacceptable because:
 * Bookroom.ir, as a source for introducing Persian books, is almost only used in 'Bibliography' to introduce Avini's books. What's wrong with this?
 * As far as I'm concerned, Agnes Devictor has done his Ph.D regarding Avini professional film career and some parts of his life. Devictor's work is an academic third party and hence reliable source, why not use it? By the way, I have no idea how you found this link dead!
 * Whether the sources are dated or not, paged or not is not something to be retarding article's progress in DYK. Nothing requires us to have the sources dated or paged. However, I can tell the pages if there are challenging claim.
 * All the points, including Avini's studying in US, is well referenced in the article. I found no sources going through the details.
 * As you see, thanks to GeneralizationsAreBad, the article has undergone almost 2 rounds of copy edits and I don't think your claim is acceptable, unless you can show us specifically what you mean!
 * Can you please show us what sections have "a slant towards glorifying the subject"? Mhhossein (talk) 07:17, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
 * By the way, I was surprised to see that you could predict Avini's title, "the master of martyred literati"! Mhhossein (talk) 07:37, 24 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Symbol redirect vote 4.svg New reviewer is needed: ِDespite my reply to the alleged issues raised by the former reviewer (both here and on the talk page of the article), he does not seem willing to continue this review although I tried to resolve the issues via discussion and asked for his feedback some days ago. It appears that the main issue is that the article needs to be copy edited once again and GeneralizationsAreBad has shown willingness to finish the job and I thank him for his former copy edits on the article. So, I'd like to ask another reviewer to address the recent edits and check what else should be done. Mhhossein (talk) 11:51, 5 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Symbol question.svg This article has certainly improved somewhat from the nominated version. All potentially contentious material is now cited. However, there are still issues with language. Has this been copy-edited by a GOCE volunteer? In particular the section about the change in his life is rather messianic in its tone, and the information about his style is not presented very neutrally, either. Vanamonde (talk) 11:40, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the review. I tried to maintain a suitable and neutral version in my edits. I should tell you that the article has undergone a round of copy edit by a GOCE volunteer, as mentioned above, and it's waiting for another round. Regarding the tone and neutrality of the sections, I think the source have also similar tone. However, I know the our article needs to be as neutral as possible. Do you have any specific edit suggestions? -- M h hossein   talk 12:43, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
 * The most general suggestions I have are to avoid the use of quotes, which tend to include slightly fluffy language, and to paraphrase instead. Also, I would suggest even just removing the section where he is discussing his own work. Also, please check for run-on sentences (this is not a neutrality issue, but worth doing). Finally, terms such as "profane nature" of western art should not be thrown around without qualification. I can give more specific suggestions, but I'm a little busy right now. I'll look at it again soon. Regards, Vanamonde (talk) 13:55, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for checking on the image and verifying acceptability, Chris Woodrich. Good to go. SojoQ (talk) 00:11, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Symbol redirect vote 4.svg Okay, I was sort of hoping that I could make minor copy-edits and then pass this, but I think my edits have been substantial enough that I have to call for a new review to maintain the integrity of the process. For what it's worth, I think most of the prose/neutrality issues have been fixed, and a lot of the promotional language has been pruned. I've also checked the English references. Vanamonde (talk) 05:54, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Symbol question.svg I agree the prose/neutrality issues have been sufficiently addressed. The article was new enough at the time of nomination, expanded 5x and now stands at 6842 characters. No copyvios detected for the English articles, foreign articles taken on good faith. ALT2 hook has an inline citation, also taken in good faith. QPQ is done. Was the image issue cleared up? If so, this article appears to be good to go now. SojoQ (talk) 11:03, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Chris Woodrich, any issues with the new image's licensing? It appears to be okay, but after the issues with previous images, it would be nice to have someone experienced to confirm this one's bona fides. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:21, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, it looks acceptable. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:32, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Pinging SojoQ, now that the image issue has been addressed above, to complete the review. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:21, 30 August 2016 (UTC)