nd made minor changes in formatting (repeat last name every new section, let ima

ge look "into" the text, link the first time, combine short sections). I think t
he article should go through copyediting, - a phrase such as "By the Islamic rev
olution of Iran, he joined cinema and started his artistic career" seems unclear
. You could request that at WP:GOCE, let's have a look again afterwards. There's
no rush to meet a certain date. As for POV: this is just DYK, not GA or FA, com
pleteness is not required. The article should of course always say "is regarded
as a martyr" (and by whom), not "is a martyr". Mhhossein, could you please make
sure that is followed? (I have no time to read every line.) --Gerda Arendt (talk
) 16:01, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
Thank you Byronmercury and Gerda Arendt for the review and for the raised points
. I checked the article and there's no such thing as "is a martyr" and it's emph
asized that he was entitled and regarded as martyr. I'll make a request at WP:GO
CE and will let you know when ever the case is addressed by them. Mhhossein (tal
k) 17:26, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
Gerda Arendt, I have restored Byronmercury's original icon above, as it was corr
ect. NPOV is a very important DYK criterion and should never be ignored; this is
n't an issue of completeness but of balance, and sufficiently serious that the "
?" icon is not appropriate since it isn't a simple fix. Also, many of Mhhossein'
s DYK nominations have run into NPOV issues, with a number of rounds of edits re
quired before the reviewer has been satisfied. The GOCE copyedit may well not ad
dress the neutrality issue, especially if doing so requires finding new sources.
Finally, this review did not cover the QPQ requirement, and Mhhossein needs to
supply one as he has well over five DYK nominations to his credit. BlueMoonset (
talk) 17:29, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
BlueMoonset: I meant to perform a review to cover the QPQ requirement. By the wa
y, those "many DYK nominations," as evidenced, later emerged to be not that prob
lematic as alleged by the reviewers (just see the nomination process of them). Y
ou are ignoring the inherent biased approach of some users, when it comes to I-P
and middle east articles. As ever, I'm ready to resolve any issue specifically
mentioned by the reviewers. Mhhossein (talk) 17:48, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I just took a closer look at the image, which I like a lot, and
I'm not sure that the public domain declaration for the photo is valid. It's a p
hoto of a wall painting, and Iran does not, so far as I can tell, allow freedom
of panorama, which would mean that the original artist still holds copyright unl
ess it's a very old painting that is itself in the public domain. (I very much d
oubt that the photo is by the artist, given the other photos uploaded.) Chris Wo
odrich, could you please comment on whether the image is allowable at DYK? (Even
if not, might there be a non-free justification for keeping it in the article?)
Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:52, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
Definitely still in copyright. A photograph would be better for fair use, as the
Chris Woodrich (talk) 04:20, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
painting is highly idealized.
I have removed the image from the nomination. It also seems to me, Chris Woodric
h, that as long as the image is in the article, as it is still in copyright, tha
t we cannot promote the nomination, because it would be on the main page with a
copyvio image in it. Correct? BlueMoonset (talk) 23:52, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
@Crisco 1492: Thank you, do you think we can make use of this photo instead? Mhh
ossein (talk) 14:39, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
No, because there is no indication who took the underlying photograph (i.e. the
object being photographed). Rephotographing something does not grant one copyrig
ht over it.
Chris Woodrich (talk) 14:44, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
Chris Woodrich: How about this one, considering that Tasnim releases its content
under