Talk:Mohammad Reza Pahlavi/GA1

GA Review

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

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

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

Review

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.

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.
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).
Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
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

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.

Thanks for the advice, I've arranged the section into subsections and made the mention of the 1921 coup more obvious. Shahzad (talk)

19:45, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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?

I have added subsections to this section, sorted out the issue with flying and mentioned his relationship with his exiled father. Shahzad (talk)

23:00, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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?

I've mentioned the Shah's introduction to Soraya. The 1964 assassination attempt has been removed from this section and is mentioned later in the article. Shahzad (talk)

23:01, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

2.3. Oil nationalization and the 1953 coup: Odd chronology here as well - it is very hard to follow what happens in what order. At one moment the Shah has finished the coup and commuted Mossadegh's sentence, the next paragraph we are back in time and support for Mossadegh is strong and the Shah hides under a blanket. Also the nature and extent of the MI6 and CIA involvement is unclear - was Pahlavi at this point a puppet to Western powers? Also which forces supported the Shah and made the coup possible? Did the Iranian military back the Shah against the democratic government? Were there American or British "boots on the ground"?

I apologize for taking a little longer. I wanted to get a hold of some of the literature used to do spot checks. Now I have Milani and Zonis' books and will proceed with the review over the coming week. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 09:02, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Concluding the review

I have now read through the article and must say that I will have to fail it on criteria 1A "well written", 2B "focused" and 3 "neutral":

1A - It is extremely wordy, and does not use WP:SUMMARYSTYLE - its size is at 163KB readable prose almost twice the size that WP:SIZE recommends for spliiting an article. Clearly most of the over long sections should be rewritten in summary style - and the more detailed version can be spun out to a daughter article. The

2B - It is not very focused, but provides many many details on matters that are not central to the topic. The excessive amount of detail makes the article less useful for readers because it is simply not possible to get an overview of the different aspects of the Shah, his life and his rule. There is an overemphasis on the Shah as person, to the detriment of understanding the political and social aspects of his rule and the period of iranian history it represents.

3 - The article seems somewhat positively biased towards Pahlavi: The Revolution is described as a surprise, and indeed it is a surprise that the Iranian people might revolt since none of the unpleasant aspects of his rule have been described: repression of political opponentns, systematic torture, forced confessions, secret police etc. The mention of th4 1963 uprisings do not include mention of the bloody repression of the pro-Khomeini protesters. All of this makes the article less informative because it really becomes unfathomable why the iranian people would prefer a muslim fanatic who doesn't want women to vote over an enlightened monarch who promotes peace and modernity. ON these accounts I will have to fail the article for now. Most urgent is an editing out of unnecessary detail to focus on the most significant parts - ideally it should be only around 100KB - I suggest spinning out articles on the main periods of his rule, or moving content to already existing articles such as the one on the Coup d'Etat.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 14:23, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]