Talk:Subsidies in Iran/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Jezhotwells (talk) 02:21, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

I shall be reviewing this article against the Good Article criteria, following its nomination for Good Article status.

Disambiguations: none found. Jezhotwells (talk) 02:29, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Linkrot: 6 found and tagged.[1] Jezhotwells (talk) 02:29, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Checking against GA criteria

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   make Iran less vulnerable towards new UN sanctions because of its nuclear program by reducing fuel imports needs rephrasing, clumsy prose

   ''concurrently, save money for the Iranian people by ending a multi-billion dollar-a-year contraband as 17% of daily fuel production in Iran is smuggled abroad.[17][18] Due to subsidies, Iran had long had one of the cheapest gas prices in the world, 10 cents per liter or 40 cents per gallon;[ poor prose rephrase.

   reduce waste and consumerism among the higher income strata that has enjoyed the same subsidies as the poor until now again poor prose.

   increase social justice through targeted social assistance, since the richest decile of households benefits 12 times more from gasoline subsidies than the poorest decile; poor prose

   On March 8, 2010, Iranian Parliament finally approved a $347-billion budget, based on a $20 billion allocation from subsidies cuts and $65 oil price. missing definite article.

   As a compromise, the Iranian Parliament has granted Ahmadinejad's government the freedom to disperse the $20 billion worth of yearly subsidies over a six- or nine-month period, allowing larger individual cash payments that are on par with those that would have been made with a larger subsidy cut. Very poor and confusing.

   This is very poorly written. Please get it copy-edited by someone with a good command of plain English. The WP:Guild of copyeditors may be able to help.

   Ok, the prose is reasonable now. One thing that does need addressing is the bulleted lists. these should be converted into prose as per MoS. Jezhotwells (talk) 14:17, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   6 dead links as noted above.

   The subsidy plan is one of the most important undertakings in needs direct attribution.

   Referenced well, sources appear to be RS, youtube links are official TV outlets, no OR

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   Good coverage, meets criteria

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   Images licensed and captioned.

   Hi! If I could just make a quick interjection, I'd disagree with 6b for just one, probably easily fixable reason: the first picture in the article, of a really colorful bus, goes totally without explanation. Basically, the caption should explain why that picture is there; will the subsidy plan increase the number of buses? Decrease that number? Increase the price of fuel? Decrease it? Whatever the reason, just make sure the image is justified with a caption pertaining to the article. Thanks! BobAmnertiopsis∴_ChatMe! 04:36, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

   That point appears to have bee answered now. Jezhotwells (talk) 12:30, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   On Hold for seven days for a thorough copy-edit. Jezhotwells (talk) 02:44, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

   OK, good improvements, just need the lists incorporating into prose now. Jezhotwells (talk) 14:20, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

   That has been done, so I will pass this now. Congratulations! Jezhotwells (talk) 18:33, 14 March 2011 (UTC)