Talk:Ethnic Identity and the State in Iran/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Ganesha811 (talk · contribs) 15:54, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi! I'm opening a Good Article Nomination review. Hoping to complete the review over the next couple of days. I'll be using the template below. Thanks! Ganesha811 (talk) 15:54, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Pirhayati, I'm not quite done checking everything, but it would be great to start discussing some of the issues that have come up and making changes. The copyvio and close phrasing issues are the biggest problem - until those are fixed, this definitely won't pass GA. Other issues are less egregious but still need attention. I think we can get this article to GA but it will take some changes. Ganesha811 (talk) 14:33, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Ganesha811 Thank you very much. I'll try to do the amendments in the next three days. Ali Pirhayati (talk) 10:05, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Ganesha811 I made the amendments as far as I could. I didn't find any independent source for Saleh's career. I also paraphrased the alleged copyvios. Ali Pirhayati (talk) 06:43, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Pirhayati, thank you, I will take a look and let you know where we stand. Ganesha811 (talk) 03:27, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Pirhayati, there are only a couple of small things left to do - see comments below. I'm doing my final prose and copyright checks. Ganesha811 (talk) 19:06, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Pirhayati, this passes! Congrats on a good article. I'll do the needful now. Ganesha811 (talk) 15:28, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Ganesha811 Thank you very much for your time and consideration. Ali Pirhayati (talk) 08:01, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	Avoid "already" in lead There should probably be a link to Ethnicities in Iran worked into the lead. Use descriptors set off by commas rather than parenthetical statements () in the Reception section for people's academic affiliations. The paragraph on Farzad quotes quite a lot from the source and should probably be further paraphrased and summarized. Looking again, I realize this seems contradictory with what I say about the Hiles source below. I think the key thing here is to clearly distinguish Wikipedia's voice from the source's voice. A direct quote should be used where there is no way to paraphrase it cleanly, while everything else should be a true summary of the source and in Wikipedia's own voice. The first sentence of the 'Reception' section refers to the review locations without mentioning the authors. The reviews are then further described in the section, this time listed by author. Better to spread out the first sentence to each review as appropriate to make clear who is writing what in which journal. I think the background section can be renamed 'Author' and its last sentence moved to the lead or synopsis. In the lead, using "the problems" implies specific issues, which should be described parenthetically or wikilinked to an appropriate page. The issue could also be simply avoided by saying "problems" and eliminating the "the". I don't think it's necessary to list all the journals Saleh has published in. His academic credentials are enough to show credibility, which I assume was the point. Update: the above issues are largely fixed. Will check again for prose and make any small changes needed myself. Pass, issues addressed.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Pass, no issues.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	Pass, no issues.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	I'm a little iffy on using Google Scholar as a source. It strikes me both that Google Scholar might well be unreliable (as it is largely automatically generated) and that using its listings is WP:OR. This discussion tends towards the same view. Fixed now. The first source, from CAIS, is a bit better, but of course, it's not independent. That can be ok for non-controversial biographical details, like this, so I think it's ok, but watch for phrasing - some of it is very close between what CAIS wrote and what we have here. I'd feel more comfortable with an independent source and less paraphrasing. Is any other source available here?
	2c. it contains no original research.	I was concerned that the synopsis may have some OR but it appears the referenced reviews included the material, so pass on this.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	An area of concern. The first source I checked, Mabon's review, is extremely closely followed in the first part of the Synopsis section, to the point that I think we're in danger of a copyright violation. Please find ways to rewrite the material on the page so it does not use any phrasing from Mabon's writing, such as "overview of the key theoretical material that shaped his fieldwork", "explores the Iranian case", etc. Now fixed. The sentence in 'Reception' on Hiles' review also has extremely close phrasing. I would rather you used direct quotes where appropriate and surrounded them with Wikipedia's own words. This is pretty on the line for copyvio. Second check - no more glaring issues. Hold while I do a complete check.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Pass, found no other significant reviews/discussion/sources for this book.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Pass.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	Pass, no issues.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	Pass, no issues.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	Fair use image seems fine. Image of Saleh is missing a description. Adding description would be good.^
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Pass, no issues.
	7. Overall assessment.