Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Economy of Iran/archive1


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by Laser brain 14:54, 7 February 2011.

Economy of Iran

 * Nominator(s): SSZ (talk) 21:00, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Although there have been many books in Persian and other languages analyzing the social, political, and cultural changes since the 1978–79 Revolution, no equivalent texts in any language deal with Iran’s economic issues.

Hi, I am nominating this for featured article because I believe it is up to FA standards. It has been peer reviewed already and GA approved. SSZ (talk) 22:11, 30 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose - I'm impressed by your willingness to tackle an article of this scope, but I disagree with your assertion that it's up to FA standards at this time. There are a lot of images, including several galleries, which is advised against by the Manual of Style (not to mention the gallery format makes many of the charts too small to be useful). Prose needs some attention for tone (the "imposed war"?) and general grammar and fluency ("One of the prime investment targets of well off Iranians as tangible."?). Several important factual/statistical points are unreferenced ("Construction is one of the most important sectors in Iran accounting for 20–50% of the total private investment"; "Estimates of service sector spending in Iran are regularly more than two-fifths of the GDP"). There are also problems with reference formatting - a couple of bare URLs, multiple inconsistencies, a couple of dead links. Sorry, but it's not ready yet. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:44, 30 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment: - Thanks for your very quick input. I used the gallery format because it is convenient in this context, and since there are so many statistics to be shown. It should not be difficult to change this, if there is a consensus. The rest can be addressed as easily in a short period of time (within a week). I vouch to do it myself if need be. SSZ (talk) 22:11, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The galleries have now gone, but this has not inproved the article, imo. Galleries are not "advised against by the Manual of Style" in general terms.  Of course the graphs cannot be read at gallery size, but now (even with a 300px image setting) they are still too small to read easily, but large enough to clutter the article up badly. Johnbod (talk) 04:03, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
 * You're right, the MOS has no blanket prohibition on galleries. SSZ, sorry for not being clear - my objection is to the sheer number of images, not to the fact that some of those images were in galleries. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:16, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks to both of you for you very quick input. I did the changes to the point many graphs are gone. SSZ (talk) 08:37, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Please tell me what you think after seeing Economy of India as a point of comparison.SSZ (talk) 10:46, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Economy of India probably isn't the best goal, as it's currently undergoing review of its featured status. In any case, I'm still seeing problems with prose and referencing. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:09, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Disambig/External Link check - 1 dab (Saipa), 3 dead external links (this, this, this). Quite a few external redirects which may lead to link rot, see them with the tool in the upper right of this page. -- Pres N  01:57, 1 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the info. SSZ (talk) 09:43, 4 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment - I see 13 sections ending without a reference. Right off the bat that suggests it isn't ready. --♫ Hurricanehink ( talk ) 17:18, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Oppose, I'm afraid. But well done: given the need for English-speakers to engage with the problematic Iran, this is an extremely important topic that is not generally accessible. It does need assistance from prose nerds: micro-glitches and lack of flow in places. Here are a few random points from the top:
 * "Iran will be among the leading economies of the world.[41]"—This sentence sticks out in the lead: flow problems both to and from it.
 * US$ 100 billion -> $100 billion. Even the first time, $ is by default US$ in an international context in which the local currency is not called "dollar"; not usually linked; no gap.
 * "Iran's population more than doubled in a 20-year period"—what, from 1959 to 1979? Or do you mean "over the two decades up to 2010"?
 * "By the late 1990s, Iran was a major food importer, and economic hardship in the countryside had driven vast numbers of people to migrate to cities." Do these points belong in the one sentence? I'm searching for a connection between them—causal or otherwise.
 * "the country's economic future economy faces many obstacles"
 * "In the early 21st century the service sector contributed the largest percentage of the gross domestic product (GDP)"—to contribute a percentage is not idiomatic. What about "comprised the largest proportion of"?
 * "In 2009 the ratio of research to GDP reached 0.87% and the set target is 2.5%." In 2009 the target is? Was. Or "0.87%, against the goverment's long-term (medium-term?) target of 2.5%." I'm surprised research funding is right up the top of Macro-economic trends.
 * "energy-inefficient". Comma audit throughout is required. The and a are a problem. Tony   (talk)  06:29, 3 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks to Hurricanehink and Tony for your feedback. Tony, to answer your question regarding migration to cities: In my understanding, it is implied that most of the these people were farmers. Please see the previous sentence for the context. I can clarify the sentence but it may be too much. What do you think? I would also appreciate greatly if other editors can opine about the gallery format, so we can reach a decision (whatever it is). For the rest I am almost done with all the recommendations above and change proposals by various editors.. If others can help address the critics as well as the copy-editing part, that would be greatly appreciated also! SSZ (talk) 09:43, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Sources comments: Referencing remains uneven. There are still paragraphs not terminating with a citation, while others have what look like unnecessary reference strings. A check through the first 30 or so of the citations leads me to think that the article is still not fully ready for FAC, given the numerous style inconsistencies. Thus:-
 * Ref 1: The IMF data should be dated (2009) and should be properly titled ("Report for Selected Countries and Subjects")
 * Ref 4: This too should be dated 2009. Dates should always be given for sources, if available. Many of your sources are undated when the date is available.
 * Use a single format for retrieval dates. For example, 4, 5 and 6 etc are different from 1, 2, 10, 11 etc
 * You should also format citations consistently. In some cases (e.g. 5, 6, 7, 8 and others) publisher precedes title. The normal practice, as in 2, 3, 4, 10 and others, is to show title before publisher.
 * Ref 16: needs proper titling and date
 * Ref 18: Needs article title, author and page refs if possible.
 * Ref 22: Needs publisher details and ISBN
 * Ref 23 (this applies also to numerous others): Author's name, where available, should be provided.

I have not gone beyond this point, but some of these issues look recurrent. So far as I can see, the references all appear to be reliable and good quality, but for FAC purposes the citation style must be simililarly high quality and above all, consistent. You need to go through and weed out the inconsistencies indicated above; tiresome, I know, but necessary. Beyond these stylistic issues I must say the article looks impressively informative, though I have not read it properly. Brianboulton (talk) 14:30, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your feedback and for clarifying the inconsistencies in the reference section. I hope to be done with it by tomorrow, according to schedule. For info, I know this topic well (working on it - and many other related sub-articles such as the Tehran Stock Exchange - for 4 years now) and vouch for the accuracy of the data throughout the article. SSZ (talk) 19:04, 4 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Here is an image copyright review from Stifle.
 * Permission for File:DizinIran.jpeg should be lodged with OTRS.
 * File:Privatization Iran.jpg can't be GFDL-licensed as it's derived from a CC-BY-SA image: File:Modern tabriz03.jpg.
 * Oppose pending resolution of these. Stifle (talk) 16:48, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Revisiting by request
 * Thanks for your feedback. I have changed the license to CC-BY-SA and replaced the first pic.SSZ (talk) 21:10, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
 * That's fine; I've withdrawn my opposition. I have not reviewed the article under the other WIAFA headings (nor do I propose to). Stifle (talk) 10:31, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
 * "Iran has a high potential of becoming one of the world's largest economies in the 21st century." The grammar is awkward. "has the potential to become one of". But more important, I question the neutrality of the first ref (41) (Goldman Sachs, well, don't they have their fingers in pies?) and (42), which is "Iran Daily" ... doesn't look authoritative to me, and it's a big claim. I'd want it to come out of a very reputable and neutral economic source.
 * Macro-economic table: the columns seem skewed WRT the headings. Same for anyone else? I'm on FF for the Mac.
 * "Iran's long-term objectives since the 1979 revolution have been economic independence, full employment, and a comfortable standard of living for citizens, but at the end of the 20th century, the country's economic faces many obstacles." ... "economy faces". Is that the Iranian government's objectives? Hard to know what the people's objectives are.
 * "The "imposed" war with Iraq"—is this "imposed" epithet explained anywhere? Or do we need to read the linked article to find out?
 * "GDP figure is projected to double in the next five years."—Start with "The".

It's not hard to find glitches. Tony  (talk)  08:36, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't see any. 67.85.17.129 (talk) 12:45, 7 February 2011 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.