Talk:Mohammad Reza Pahlavi

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Former good article nominee Mohammad Reza Pahlavi was a good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
March 21, 2006 Good article nominee Not listed

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Mohammad Reza Pahlavi. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:08, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Image[edit]

I suppose the current image should be changed to this one because of higher resolution (yes, it's a scanned print, but looks bigger anyway).

I do not agree with Shahzad over:

  • 'improper' sourcing (as it's probably impossible to determine the exact origins of the picture, therefore we can only mark it as governmental production. I don't think the sources you provided about date and origins are realible enough - a travel firm site and some calendar? Are you serious?)
  • 'no difference in quality' (I wrote on this issue)
  • 'inappropriate' description (how can one add something about the picture we know almost nothing of?)

However, I can discuss the current cropping. Al-Douri (talk) 17:39, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

The current image has a much cleaner look, the one you've suggested has some impurities from being scanned. It's not a 'calendar', it is a published book. Shahzad (talk) Lion and Sun Emblem of Persia.svg 19:24, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
Yes, it has, but many details (such as decorations) are better seen. Now about your source: it's not enough for a book to be published to become a reliable source. Where are that author information comes from? Who are Ghazarians? If it's a family name, it's dubious to assume they own copyright, because it presumably was an official publication of government institutions. Moreover, it doesn't matter since the photo is in PD as it was published in Iran before the Revolution. Al-Douri (talk) 11:04, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

This whole article is not objective[edit]

This page reads like the Shah's PR team wrote it. But it had to be an Iranian government PR team; an American PR firm would be more subtle Sajita (talk) 20:04, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Mohammad Reza Pahlavi. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:16, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Mohammad Reza Pahlavi/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Maunus (talk · contribs) 16:03, 13 January 2018 (UTC)


I will start this review over the next week or so. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 16:03, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Review[edit]

  1. Well written:
    1. the prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct; and
The prose is not very clear or concise. It is very wordy, at times overly detailed and convoluted with many long run-on sentences. I will however not fail the nomination on prose, since it is mostly a matter of style and preference, but note that the prose, as it is now, would be a major obstacle if the article were to be nominated for FAC.
    1. it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
Some sections are over-long and require at the very least to be broken into subsections, and perhaps also to be shortened or spun off into daughter articles. The Section on "Early Life" is extremely long, and has no subsections.
  1. Verifiable with no original research:
    1. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;
    2. all in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines;
    3. it contains no original research; and
    4. it contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism.
  2. Broad in its coverage:
    1. it addresses the main aspects of the topic;
    2. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
  3. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
  4. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
  5. Illustrated, if possible, by images:
    1. images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content; and
    2. images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.

Section by section review[edit]

  • Lead:
  • 1. Early Life: This section is very very long and has no subsections. This makes it hard to read. It is also not clearly organized and seems to jump back and forth chronologically. I would suggest a subsection on his parents and siblings, one on his spiritual inclinations, one on his education, and one on his relationship with Perron. Also it is odd that there is no mention of the 1921 coup d'etat that made his father Shah.
  • 2.1. Deposition of his father. Contrary to the title this section (which should be divided into at least two, probably 3 subsections) is really about 1. Mohammad Reza's first marriage, 2. The anglo-Soviet invasion, and his fathers abdication, 3. Mohammad Reza's installation as Shah and his early attitude towards his fathers rule. Also the section is confusing when it mentions that he only began to learn how to fly after becoming Shahs (the section Early Life made it appear that he was already flying regularly when he was a young crown prince), and when it does not describe how the abdication of Reza Shah and crowning of Mohammad Reza as Shah affected their relationship which was described as very close- what happened to the father after abdication?
  • 2.2. The young Shah: I corrected some infelicitous language. Why is the 1964 assasination attempt treated in this section? It breaks chronology. How did Mohammed Reza meet Soraya Esfandiary?