Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Economy of Iran/1

Economy of Iran

 * • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
 * Result: Kept - The concerns that were discussed were related to the reliability of the sources used. It appears that every concern about the reliability of the sources was answered. There was also a secondary concern expressed that the article was assessed and passed by an account that had only made a few edits. This is a valid concern, and ideally the article could have been reassessed in this GAR by a more experienced reviewer, but it does not appear that anyone had the time. The inexperience of the original GA reviewer is not, in and of itself, a valid reason to delist. Aaron north  (T/C) 03:56, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Ok, sorry to bring another article to the community for reassessment, but I have no idea about this topic and would never choose to review it. However, I am a little suspicious thought that it was reviewed and passed by a brand new editor with (as of now) exactly three edits, after previous attempts to make this a GA without going through a GA nomination. At a glance, there are some dead links and I'm not sure about the reliability of some of the sources. For example, are these reliable: I am really not familiar with these kinds of sources; they may be fine, but should be checked by someone. Also, I think some more citations to reliable are needed. For example to support the fact that Iran ranked as the world's 4th largest oil producer and 2nd largest oil exporter in the late 1970s, and its market of 300 million people.-- Beloved Freak  20:20, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Payvand.com
 * Press TV (see Press TV controversies)
 * Shana.ir
 * Payvand is a news aggregator. As such it is not a source. I have replaced the two links with the news agency cited instead. PressTV is like "CNN" for Iran. As such, it has its share of controversies but CNN and BBC have their own controversies as well. See BBC controversies for example. You'll need to be more specific so we can discuss it further. "Shaha.ir" is the official news agency for the oil and gas in Iran and as such can be considered a reliable source for data on Iran's oil industry. It is cited regularly by other major news agencies such as AFP or Reuters. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.197.144.38 (talk • contribs) 04:15, 26 September 2010
 * Thanks for changing those aggregator sources. My concern with Press TV would be that it seems (according to our own article) to have questionable reliability and has been accused of bias and intentional errors. I accept your comment that CNN and BBC can also be controversial, but I'd like to see some other opinions on Press TV. I'm not convinced it meets WP:RS. I admit that I'm out of my depth with this topic, which is why I started a community reassessment rather than an individual one. Really, my concern is with the way the GA nomination was handled and would like to make sure the article gets a proper review by people outside the relevant Wikiproject. That's not to say anything bad about the wikiproject or accuse anyone of anything, but articles need to be reviewed by independent editors. Saying that "shara.ir" (I presume that's what you mean above & "shaha.ir" is a typo) is cited by Reuters etc, well that sounds good to me, that's a good indicator of reliability.


 * Thanks also for adding this source to deal with the Citation needed tag in reference to a market of 300 million people. There are a few problems though. Firstly, that source doesn't mention that number. Secondly, text appears to have been copied from there to the article. This is, at worst, a copyright violation and at best, plagiarism, unless the text was taken from Wikipedia by that website, in which case it can't be used as a source. Thirdly, if it hasn't lifted from Wikipedia, I still don't see how this can be a reliable source since in its disclaimer it says:
 * "'The information presented does not necessarily reflect the views of UNIDO or of the governments of UNIDO Member States and as such is not an official record. ... UNIDO makes no warranties, either express or implied, concerning the accuracy, completeness, reliability, or suitability of the information. Neither does it warrant that use of the information is free of any claims of copyright infringement.'"
 * The text was added 22 February 2010. I can't determine when the text was added to the other website; it may need to go to WP:CP. If it was copied from the UNIDO website, then that makes me more concerned about the rest of the article.-- Beloved  Freak  10:05, 26 September 2010 (UTC)


 * First regarding CP, Wikipedia expressely authorizes to copy "small excerpts", assuming the sentence was copied in this case. UNIDO copied from Wikipedia I would guess but I am not sure 100% either. Please note that economics is about facts and figures mostly and you cannot make those up as an editor so it has to come from somewhere necessarily. The point is that there is "no originality" here on the part of the Wikipedia editor. I read here that it is "not a copyright violation" if there is "no originality involved" which seems to be the case here. Regarding your comment about the "300 million market", the actual sentence is "..[It] gives [Iran] access to an estimated population of some 300 million people in Caspian markets, Persian Gulf states and countries further east." This doesn't mean that Iran's domestic market is 300 million. It only says how many people live in the neighboring countries altogether. As such, the statement is true. See Economic Cooperation Organization for example.


 * What is original and unique here in my humble opinion is that this article incorporates many reliable sources and by so doing gives a comprehensive view of Iran's economy. If you look at the edit history you'll see that the article has been very stable for a long time, eventhough this is potentially a very controversial subject. Finally please note that the article was evaluated by 4 independent editors as "GA" (unanimously) already.


 * By "copy[ing] small excerpts", do you mean quoting? The text that is the same is not presented as a quote, and hasn't had any form of attribution from February, until you added the citation yesterday. If that was taken from another website, then without attribution it's plagiarism, regardless of whether the text was licensed for re-use. I'm not talking about facts and figures being copied, I'm talking about prose. The website is not (as far as I can tell) 100% explicit about it's license for re-use, although it appears to allow re-use of its material. However, which ever way this has happened, if the website copied it from here, or vice versa, it's not a reliable source. It says so itself in its disclaimer. Whichever way you look at it, the source shouldn't be used.


 * As for the 300 million number, I wasn't saying that was a claim for the domestic market, I was merely requesting a RS for the statistic.


 * I'm sorry I don't follow your comment about four independent editors unanimously deciding this meets GA; I don't see four GA reviews, even in the article talk archives. Am I missing something? All I see is a GA review by an editor for whom the review was their third edit. To my uneducated (as far as economy of Iran goes) eye, the article does look good and it's an important topic; I have no problem with the article being assessed as a GA and hope it stays listed. I just want to make sure we do it right.-- Beloved Freak  09:43, 27 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your comments. Let's go in order: regarding your comment about PressTV, please feel free to point to facts and figures (or anything else) that you think might be wrong or biased. I personally don't see anything as they get the raw data either from the Government of Iran itself through its Ministries, the Central Bank or the Statistical Center of Iran. Please note it is the exact same for International Organizations such as the IMF statistics or other major international News Agencies reports. Things that might be disputed usually revolve around personal income data as there is no systematic collection of this data in Iran, eventhough things are changing because of the recent Iranian Economic Reform Plan. Yet, If you think a comment is wrong or biased, please fell free to point them out, as I can't find one (yet). Please note that this current review is not about PressTV itself, which is only one source out of many.


 * Regarding UNIDO (United Nations Industrial Development Organization), same kind of disclaimer can be found on many major news services as well. I don't think they are unreliable just because of the general disclaimer that you quoted above. UNIDO is a specialized UN agency after all. I don't think this single sentence matters much because it is self-evident for any expert on Iran's economy as explained above (I think). Please see ECO for a map and population count for this regional economic organization, of which Iran is a founding member. If you prefer, I can reformulate this sentence and/or simply refer to the ECO article itself (or just delete it). The sentence has no originality IMHO.


 * For the review by the "4 independent wiki-editors" I was referring to previously, please see the peer review, here and to the RfC that can be found here. For CP, I was quoting this notice: "If you do not want your writing to be edited, used, and redistributed at will, then do not submit it here. All text that you did not write yourself, except brief excerpts, must be available under terms consistent with Wikipedia's Terms of Use before you submit it." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.197.144.38 (talk • contribs) 17:52, 27 September 2010
 * I have no specific complaints about Press TV, I am merely asking if it is reliable. As I've said, this isn't my area which is why I started a community reassessment, not an individual one.
 * I would be very surprised and concerned to see similar disclaimers given by sources that are routinely used as reliable sources here. I couldn't see one on the BBC website, for example. UNIDO may be a specialized UN agency, but the website disclaimer also says that "The information presented does not necessarily reflect the views of UNIDO or of the governments of UNIDO Member States and as such is not an official record". Statistics need inline citations to reliable sources (WP:WIAGA) and we can't expect that all of our readers are experts on Iran's economy.
 * I see what you mean now about four independent reviewers, sorry I misunderstood. When you said "evaluated ... as GA", I thought you meant had been assessed as a GA through the GA assessment process. Anyway, that's not important here. (I don't mean their opinions aren't important, but it's the GA process we're focusing on now.)
 * The notice you quote is about reuse of our material elsewhere, not whether or not we should be copying from elsewhere. Reformulating would help, but it doesn't address the issue of the reliability (or lack thereof) of the source. -- Beloved Freak  14:09, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Here is an excerpt from the disclaimer of Bloomberg LLP: "YOU AGREE THAT YOUR USE OF THE SERVICE IS AT YOUR SOLE RISK AND ACKNOWLEDGE THAT THE SERVICE AND ANYTHING CONTAINED WITHIN THE SERVICE, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, CONTENT, SERVICES, GOODS, OR ADVERTISEMENTS ARE PROVIDED "AS IS" AND "AS AVAILABLE," AND THAT BLOOMBERG MAKES NO WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, AS TO THE SERVICE, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, MERCHANTABILITY, NON-INFRINGEMENT, TITLE, OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE OR USE." Same for BBC and the edit notice quoted above. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.197.144.38 (talk • contribs) 18:37, 28 September 2010
 * Ok, I re-read it. :) My concern with the UNIDO disclaimer is where it's specifically saying "makes no warranties ... concerning the accuracy, completeness, reliability, or suitability of the information." (my emphasis) I'm no lawyer, but in my opinion, that's not what the bloomberg one is saying, nor the BBC one. Anyway, have we established yet that its article was not copied from Wikipedia? Further up the page, you said "UNIDO copied from Wikipedia I would guess but I am not sure 100% either." We cannot use material copied form Wikipedia as a source. I appreciate your efforts here, really, but I feel like we're talking in circles now. Beloved  Freak  18:59, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

If I may, I would like to add that I personally don't know ANY source of information on Iran's economy as complete and broad and well documented as this article (and its many related sub-articles), either in free access OR fee-based, including World Bank and IMF reports.68.197.144.38 (talk) 19:27, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Weak Keep The primary concern which was expressed in this GAR was the reliability of the sources used. Making a good-faith assumption that everything else meets the criteria, I am not convinced that the sources are unreliable. The secondary concern expressed in this GAR is the fact that this very important article was passed by an account with basically no history. I agree that this should ideally be subjected to an individual reassessment by an experienced reviewer. I do not have the time to do that right now, and it appears no one else does either. I will bookmark this article and may reassess this myself sometime next year, but this review has run for a month. If there is no further discussion in the next few days, I will close the review as a keep. Aaron north  (T/C) 00:35, 3 November 2010 (UTC)