Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Iranian peoples

Iranian peoples
I wanted to nominate this article as it has been written with some extensive referencing, withstood and evolved with various disputes that are now resolved and I believe it can make it as a featured article. Any and all criticism will be taken seriously. Thanks for your consideration. Tombseye 22:49, 2 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Support per nominator, I have watched this article for some time now, and I have seen it grow in to something very special! It is accurate, unbiased and well referenced --K a s h Talk 22:53, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: Please expand lead. - Tutmosis  01:50, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Lead expanded considerably. Tombseye 04:45, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Support: my comment was met. - Tutmosis  15:41, 3 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Support - I too have watched this article grow for a while now. --Sean WI 05:00, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment -- Why is there no infobox? =Nichalp   «Talk»=  08:16, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Because some users were uncomfortable with it as Iranian peoples are rather an ethnolinguistical group than just one big ethnic group --K a s h Talk 09:45, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Mainly because the article is more of anthropological study of various ethnic groups who share some common traits, both cultural and otherwise, rather than being a single ethnic group. That was the rationale as is the case with Germanic peoples and other similar articles.


 * Support - see comments above. Tajik 11:12, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Support - Tombseye and other editors there, have done a great job. --ManiF 12:22, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Support - Good article and definitely very near to FA status, although needs to be expanded a bit during nomination. Good work. Amir85 13:11, 3 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Object—Riven with redundancies, and thus fails Criterion 2a badly. The opening five sentences don't augur well for the rest.


 * (1) "The Iranian peoples (also Iranic peoples) are a group primarily defined by their usage of Iranian languages in addition to other traits." You've said "primarily", so "in addition" is redundant. It would be much stronger, right at the start, to remove the last five words, since you don't tell us on the spot what those other traits are. Leave it for later in the article, if at all. I've already inserted "The" to fix the grammar of the first sentence.


 * (2) "They speak various Iranian languages, which were once found in a much larger area throughout Eurasia from the Balkans to western China."—Can we get rid of the "V-word", which is usually redundant? And since from the Balkans to western China is a much larger area, why not remove the redundancy there too? "They speak Iranian languages that were once found throughout Eurasia from the Balkans to western China".


 * (3) "... whose linguistic contributions have survived the test of time". I find this a bit laboured; can it be expressed more simply? I mean, why wouldn't a language group survive for thousands of years? Most have. And what do you mean by "contributions"?


 * (4) "The Iranian peoples are traced to a particular branch of the Aryans, known simply as Iranians or Proto-Iranians." It's idiomatic to say "can be traced". "Particular" is redundant. "Simply" is redundant.


 * (5) "Of these early Aryans little is known other than their languages and various cultural traits largely identified through archaeological finds." A few commas, here and throughout the article, would assist the readers. It's not clear whether it's the languages and the cultural traits, or just the cultural traits that have been identified. Probable redundancies in the V-word and "largely". Aren't you overstating the first point by saying that we know the languages of the early Aryans? To "know" them as one knows modern French or Mandarin would be a tall order.

The article needs hours' work by a good copy-editor who is not familiar with the writing of this article. Tony 16:24, 3 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Made good changes suggested. I will do a go-through and do some further editing of the article and reduce the redundancy. Any further help would be greatly appreciated! Thanks. Tombseye 16:48, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Update-did further copyedits and removed redundancy. Tombseye 21:48, 4 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Support - I found it extremely well-written and informative. Congratulations to all involved, and I hope it makes it soon.Lordrosemount 19:44, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment &mdash; references are not formatted properly. &mdash;Eternal Equinox | talk 22:53, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
 * References now formatted properly as per advice. Thanks! Tombseye 21:10, 4 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Support per nomination. --Randy Johnston 20:08, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Support per nom Anonymous  _anonymous_  Have a Nice Day  19:39, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Support well-written, informative, etc. &mdash; Khoikhoi 03:03, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Support Very informative article that scrutinizes every aspect of the topic.--Eupator 15:58, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Support Per above.--Dwaipayan (talk) 05:05, 8 June 2006 (UTC)