Talk:Subsidies in Iran/GA1

{{Good article tools}}

{{al|{{#titleparts:Iranian targeted subsidy plan/GA1|-1}}|noname=yes}}
:This review is transcluded from Talk:Iranian targeted subsidy plan/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

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.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Iranian_targeted_subsidy_plan&action=historysubmit&diff=417359552&oldid=417236345] Jezhotwells (talk) 02:29, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

:GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.
2. :a (prose): {{GAList/check|y}} b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): {{GAList/check|y}}
3. :: make Iran less vulnerable towards new UN sanctions because of its nuclear program by reducing fuel imports needs rephrasing, clumsy prose
4. ::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.
5. ::reduce waste and consumerism among the higher income strata that has enjoyed the same subsidies as the poor until now again poor prose.
6. ::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
7. ::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.
8. ::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.
9. ::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.
10. ::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)
11. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
12. :a (references): {{GAList/check|y}} b (citations to reliable sources): {{GAList/check|y}} c (OR): {{GAList/check|y}}
13. :: 6 dead links as noted above.
14. ::The subsidy plan is one of the most important undertakings in needs direct attribution.
15. ::Referenced well, sources appear to be RS, youtube links are official TV outlets, no OR
16. It is broad in its coverage.
17. :a (major aspects): {{GAList/check|y}} b (focused): {{GAList/check|y}}
18. :: Good coverage, meets criteria
19. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
20. :Fair representation without bias: {{GAList/check|y}}
21. ::
22. It is stable.
23. :No edit wars, etc.: {{GAList/check|y}}
24. ::
25. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
26. :a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): {{GAList/check|y}} b (appropriate use with suitable captions): {{GAList/check|y}}
27. :: Images licensed and captioned.
28. ::: 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)
29. ::::That point appears to have bee answered now. Jezhotwells (talk) 12:30, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
30. Overall:
31. :Pass/Fail: {{GAList/check|y}}
32. ::On Hold for seven days for a thorough copy-edit. Jezhotwells (talk) 02:44, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
33. ::OK, good improvements, just need the lists incorporating into prose now. Jezhotwells (talk) 14:20, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
34. :::That has been done, so I will pass this now. Congratulations! Jezhotwells (talk) 18:33, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
35. ::