Talk:Tehran Stock Exchange/GA2

GA Reassessment

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

Of the six criteria required of a Good Article, I believe that Tehran Stock Exchange fails in at least two. I do not believe that the article is as well written as one might hope. The article contains puffery, unsupported attributions, and relative time references, in addition to assertions and terminology not wholly appropriate to a discussion of a major financial institution. A section-by-section edit might bring clarity and more competent language to the article, should a seasoned editor with experience in financial matters care to undertake the task.

Factual accuracy is also a concern. Although the presence of dead or broken URLs is not a valid reason for a GAR, the need for verifiable and reliable sources is one of the key policies of Wikipedia. Of this article's first twenty-five references, seven were found to be dead or broken links. Those seven dead/broken references were used thirty-six times within the article. An eighth reference, to a nine year old news article, was used to support the validity of events that took place more than half a decade after the article was written. It appears that many more references fail the "Reliable Source" test. An editor with extensive experience in referencing could bring order and credibilty back to this article, should one care to undertake the task. There is also a need to update the information contained within this article, since it appears that much of the information has not been edited in several years, and may no longer be accurate.

Although this is an individual GAR, I will keep this matter open for the next five weeks for comments and review. Gulbenk (talk) 00:30, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

You said: "The article contains puffery, unsupported attributions, and relative time references, in addition to assertions and terminology not wholly appropriate to a discussion of a major financial institution." I don't see ANY. Can you give more specifics? -- You can also use REFLINKS to update references/broken links. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.199.101.219 (talk) 22:37, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

• Any updates on the progress of this GAR? AIRcorn (talk) 11:34, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Only the one response. I was hoping for more participation. But I may just have to go with what I have Gulbenk (talk) 16:07, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Aircorn:

I should have added a thanks for your earlier edit to the article. Any comments or additional edits that you might have would be greatly appreciated, before we conclude this GAR (in the next 48 hours). And if you take an opposing view, all the better. Gulbenk (talk) 17:05, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

To be honest one response is about average for these unless you decide to reassess a popular article. Apart from informing the Wikiprojects and major participants there is not much else that you can do to get participation up. My edit to the article followed a general screening of Good articles with cleanup tags (found here). I have no knowledge on this topic so there is not much I can do beyond the superficial. Looking at it the presence of all the external links in the body is problematic, although relatively easy to fix. Overall it doesn't look bad (not the worst I have seen), but I don't know whether it can be called Good. As you rightly state deadlinks in themselves are not a reason to delist, but if they interfer with criteria 2b ("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") then that is a reason. I guess it would be nice to give some examples of puffery, unsupported attributions, and relative time references for the IP and maybe see if they are interested in working on it. At the end of the day it is not the end of the world if it is delisted as it can be nominated again at any time and it doesn't reduce the actual quality of the article. AIRcorn (talk) 05:25, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

GAR Findings

A Good Article Reassessment was undertaken on December 22, 2012. On that date, notification of the GAR was sent to major contributors. A statement outlining the reasons for reassessment was posted to the GAR page, and that statement was transluded onto the article TALK page. Comments were solicited over a eight week review period. Findings from that reassessment are as follows:

1.Well-written? - Concerns were presented that the article, as written, has certain shortcomings. Puffery should be addressed. Statements about market movements using words like "meltdown", "surge", and "plunged" are overly dramatic. So, too, are remarks about "exceptional performance", "staggering growth rates", and "huge amounts of idle money". There are also relative time references, such as "recent years" (which appear to be not-so-recent) and "now" (when, 2004?), and a "crisis in the market leading to certain meltdowns until today" (which sounds both dramatic and never ending). Unsupported attributions were also addressed in the initial GAR outline statement. Of lesser concern is the blending of British English and American English within the text. These shortcomings persist. As mentioned initially, a section-by-section edit might bring clarity and economy of expression to the article, if a seasoned editor cares to undertake that task. The article, while good on balance, falls just short of being well written.

2.Factually accurate and verifiable? - At the onset of the reassessment it was stated that numerous references (used thirty-six times within the article) were either dead or broken. And that, although the presence of dead or broken URLs is not a valid reason for a GAR, the need for verifiable and reliable sources is one of the key policies of Wikipedia. This inability to verify the truth of numerous statements within the article calls into question factual accuracy. An editor with extensive experience in referencing could bring order and credibilty back to this article, should one care to undertake the task. There is also a need to update the information contained within this article, since it appears that much of the information has not been edited in several years, and may no longer be accurate. The article, as it stands, can not be said to be factually accurate and verifiable.

3.Broad in its coverage? - The article addresses a broad number of issues.

4.Neutral? - This article appears to have achieved neutrality and balance.

5.Stability? - This article has undergone 100 separate revisions since October 13, 2011. Additional editing is needed, to implement general improvements. In the absence of edit warring and excessive vandalism this article can be accepted as stable.

6.Illustrated? - The article does not contain any photographs or maps. However, it does contain both graphs and information boxes to graphically highlight points made within the body of the text. The article is properly illustrated.

Upon reassessment, this article, while quite good in many aspects, does not achieve two of the six criteria required for the designation of Good Article. Gulbenk (talk) 02:11, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Comments:

I notice that it would have taken less time to fix those small problems than to write your entire analysis here. Factual accuracy is NOT into question as per your remark above. The tool can be used to repair broken links. I know you know how to use this tool from your edits, despite the fact that you seem to be a relatively recent editor as per your edit history (unless this is a bogus account here). In fact you have failed to give us ANY specifics so other editors can assist you with the editing (despite being asked by myself and another editor above). Dead links by themselves are NOT a reason for delisting here since ALL facts reported in this article are accurate (unless you can point to any specifics). "exceptional performance" and other similar words are not "puffery" as per your comments above. This is a VERIFIABLE FACT as per cited sources. The Tehran Stock exchange has been "one of the best performing stock exchanges over the past few years (2002-2011)". Regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.199.101.219 (talk) 06:22, 19 February 2013 (UTC)