Talk:Criticism of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action

	This article was reviewed by member(s) of WikiProject Articles for creation. The project works to allow users to contribute quality articles and media files to the encyclopedia and track their progress as they are developed. To participate, please visit the project page for more information.Articles for creationWikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creationTemplate:WikiProject Articles for creationAfC articles
	This article was accepted from this draft on 15 January 2018 by reviewer St170e (talk · contribs).

United States: Government Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. Government (assessed as Mid-importance).

Why/how was this article created/approved?[edit]

The history shows that it was created via the Articles for Creation process, and the article's history appears to show that it was written over the last two days. I am unfamiliar with the process and would like to more about how it works and how quality control is supposed to be maintained.

My principal concern is its lack of balance, which appears to be intrinsic to its title. By focusing on criticisms, the article gives short shrift to positive views. Maybe in the interest of balance this should be replaced by an article ""Reactions to the Iran nuclear deal," but that would require extensive revisions to offset the bias in this one. NPguy (talk) 19:08, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I approved this article so I'll leave a brief comment. The AfC process is open to all editors to submit articles and the principle task is to approve articles that meet WP policies and to approve articles that won't be deleted by AfD. See WP:AFC/RI for more information on how submissions are approved. This article met the criteria laid out and I don't see any problem with it being on Wikipedia. That doesn't mean that you can't change the article – you are welcome to propose a move to "Reactions to the Iran nuclear deal". I'm tagging the page author for their response: Ftxs.

It is, of course, obvious that the article doesn't give weight to the positives of the Iran deal – this article is supposed to give, in more detail, the main criticisms that are listed on the main article. This isn't the first "Criticisms of..." article on Wikipedia, but I do understand your concerns. This article should be added as a hatnote (See more...) to the main article, whether it remain in its current form or be changed to Reactions (giving a comprehensive view of both sides). st 170e 19:26, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm the author of the page. First off, thanks for reading and approving my article. When I first came up with the idea of writing the article I wasn't sure if I wanted it to be "Reaction to the Iran nuclear deal" or "Criticism of the Iran nuclear deal" but I eventually decided on the latter. I made this decision because I wanted a little bit more room to write about Iranian internal politics (specifically the Revolutionary Guards and clerics) and writing about its critics allowed me that extra room. As mentioned above, the reason I don't give much consideration to the arguments in favor of the deal is because it was an article on the deal's critics and I figured that the general article on the JCPOA covered the public reaction and positive interpretations of the deal well enough. I saw a litany of other articles of "Criticism of X" such as Criticism of the Kyoto Protocol, Criticism of the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, or Criticism of the World Trade Organization and figured I would write an article in the same vein as those articles on the Iran deal instead. I should also add the page I wrote is not intended to be politically motivated or biased in any way if that was one of your concerns (I should note I actually support the deal).Ftxs (talk) 19:43, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Earwig is picking up a lot of substantial quotations - I've condensed and reworded these to reduce that. Long quotes are allowed, but editors are encouraged to summarize sources in their own words when possible. SeraphWiki (talk) 23:54, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am still concerned by the lack of balance in this article. Because the issue in this article is of high political interest, this creates a heightened risk that readers will be led (perhaps misled) to a negative conclusion about the Iran deal by reading this article. I would propose an article on reactions to the Iran deal, except that I think the article on the Iran deal already covers both sides pretty well. Maybe material in this article could be merged into that article, or maybe that article can be streamlined by creating an article on reactions. NPguy (talk) 03:24, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It is poorly executed for a criticism article, pieced together from news sources instead of a coherent summary of a significant critical analysis in expert secondary sources. Reading it I get a sense of who is critical of the Iran deal, but why they are opposed is poorly explained. Hardliners are against the deal for a variety of the reasons, notably their desire to turn Iran into a nuclear armed state in order to deter the United States and Israel - I checked the citation and its either unsourced or the source is to a BBC article. Speaking as a reader, and not as an editor, I don't think the source, if it even has a source, is strong enough for this statement, but its not particularly unusual. SeraphWiki (talk) 03:53, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And from the portions I have read it is not even a balanced rendition of its sources. If these portions are representative, there are real quality control problems. NPguy (talk) 18:28, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't seem to be that bad. It could however use some expansion in the 'Opposition in Iran' section but I don't see any obvious bias or political slant. If you do see bias it's possible it could be a product of quoting some sources rather the intent of the person who wrote it. In any case, the article is supposed to be laying out the reasons the deal is being criticized so of course its going to come across a negative or perhaps a biased view of the deal. I just read the article Criticism of Facebook and it looks the same way as this one in many ways. I'm not an experienced editor however, mainly a reader, but I'm having a hardtime seeing blatant bias in it. A cursory glance at the references list doesn't denote very much, or any, conservative news outlets either. Let it stay and the community thinks it's too biased than let the community edit it. Just my two cents. Ekolot (talk) 22:41, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

Ali Khamenei with the Revolutionary Guard Corps and Basij - Mashhad (52).jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 05:30, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Ali Khamenei with the Revolutionary Guard Corps and Basij - Mashhad (52).jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 07:12, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]