Talk:US Senators, EU voice support for Iran sanctions
- Title still has a spelling error after change. Went from "Senetors" to "Sentors" - should be "Senators." --LoganCale 23:00, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
NPOV concern 
Good effort but much too much of the article outlines the West's argument and much too little is allotted to Iran's pov. Please be sure to include Iran's proposal that western companies engage in joint ventures to develop Iran's nuclear energy so that all activities would be transparant. Neutralizer 01:52, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
- Actually, Wikinews article do not need to be balanced in their representation of views so long as the news event is covered neutrally. That said, this article is not neutral, but reads as a list of campaign soundbites. What is the news event being covered here? I will look at this more closely, but on first exam there does not appear to be a specific news event or phenomenon. Incidentally 15% of the US Senate does not sound like a groundswell of support. - Amgine | talk en.WN 02:07, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
- I think senators and the EU calling for sanctions and such is news when it comes to thes iran issue. DragonFire1024 is Jason Safoutin
- Dragon: Neutralizer tagged this story and momentarily ago he was blocked for a week. So I am afraid you will get no actionable objections from him. Article tags are required to be actionable, so you are free to remove the tag and republish. -Edbrown05 02:42, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
Actionable issues 
- Article does not deal with a news event or phenomenon; is an aggregation of only somewhat related news factoids. I suggest determining a specific focus, such as the US Congress's response to Iran's announcement or the IAEA assessment report and its immediate ramifications. There can be several articles about the subject, each focused on a different aspect of Iran's determination to continue its nuclear research and enrichment programs.
- Only three sentences in this article refer to the EU. None refer to sanctions against Iran.
- The choice of phrasing often implies bias: "Iran continues to insist" while "United States senators ... voiced strong support for sanctions against Iran" (which they have been doing at least since 1979.) Senator McCain presses for sanctions - and thus higher oil price - while the President Iran says it might push oil prices higher if slapped with sanctions but the tone is clearly positive for Mr. McCain but negative for Mr. Ahmadinejad.
- The last statment on th oil...its a fact
- It seems sensationalist to include the nuclear symbol. How about we remove it and repalce it with the standard Iran on a map picture? Nyarlathotep 18:45, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
and few of them would not rule out military action. 
This bit misleadingly makes it sound like it's the first time the US ever considered a military action against Iran:
- and few of them would not rule out military action.
So i've added in a reference to what seems to be the best known US action against Iran, using NPOV wikipedia material:
- The most well-known military action by the US against an elected government in Iran was the Anglo-American covert Operation Ajax in 1953 in which Prime Minister Mohammed Mossadegh was overthrown and the exiled Shah was restored to the throne as a dictator.
Is this article dead, or ready to publish? I think I took care of any and all grammar issues, and I think POV problems are taken care of as well. webby06 16:14, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
- Matthew did a great job,imo. I will remove the tag and publish. Neutralizer 18:05, 25 January 2006 (UTC)