Talk:The Accounting Review/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Cirt (talk · contribs) 03:40, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I will review this article. — Cirt (talk) 03:40, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Stability review

Inspection of article edit history going back over one year shows no problems.
I looked at talk page edit history as well and only saw positive collaboration, no issues here either.

— Cirt (talk) 03:52, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

No images used in present in article, so technically this part of the review would be passing. But Well-rested, the article could do with a free-use or at the very least fair-use image if possible, perhaps of a cover of the publication? — Cirt (talk) 04:59, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have added a fair-use image of the cover. --Randykitty (talk) 14:19, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, great, thanks very much. — Cirt (talk) 16:38, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the slightly late reply, and thanks, Randykitty. -Well-rested ^Talk 20:40, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Good article nomination on hold

This article's Good Article promotion has been put on hold. During review, some issues were discovered that can be resolved without a major re-write. This is how the article, as of January 31, 2014, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?:

NOTE: Please comment, below entire GA Review, and not interspersed throughout, thanks!
Writing quality is good for GA standards. A few minor issues, listed, below.
However, I'd recommend both a peer review going forwards after the GA review is completed, and also to put in a request for copy edit with the Guild of Copy Editors.
Lede: Please move the citations in the intro out of the lede. Per WP:LEAD, the intro sect should be a standalone summary of the entire article's contents. Therefore, this info should already be properly cited, later on in the article's main body text, instead of in the lede. None of it looks to be controversial or likely to be challenged, and if so, it could easily be found later on in the article, if the citations are moved there, instead.
Lede size: Lede size seems a bit small. Per WP:LEAD, it should be able to function as a standalone summary of the entire article's contents. Please try to expand the lede a bit more.

2. Factually accurate?: Duly cited throughout to appropriate citations.

3. Broad in coverage?:

The article overall looks a bit skimpy.
Specifically, I was drawn to the sect titled Abstracting and indexing.
Missing: Sect for Reception. I think the Abstracting and indexing sect could be retained, with the bit about it being "top five accounting journals..." etc moved to a Reception sect, and then expand that new sect with some additional secondary source commentary.
The journal has been around since 1926. And yet a total of eight (8) sources are used for the article's contents. Please try to find additional research, and, if possible, try to expand the article's contents with twelve (12) or so more sources. This will also help with NPOV, as it will incorporate multiple differing viewpoints from varied perspectives during the process of expanding with additional secondary sources.

4. Neutral point of view?: Written in a neutral tone. Matter of fact wording used throughout.

5. Article stability? See my comments, above, passes here.

6. Images?: See my comments, above, passes here.

NOTE: Please comment, below entire GA Review, and not interspersed throughout, thanks!

Please address these matters soon and then leave a note here showing how they have been resolved. After 48 hours the article should be reviewed again. If these issues are not addressed within 7 days, the article may be failed without further notice. Thank you for your work so far. — Cirt (talk) 21:00, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review. I'll try to respond to the issues and make appropriate changes as soon as I can. --Well-rested ^Talk 21:07, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, sounds good. No rush, just take your time and update here. As long as you're making good progress towards good article quality in a good manner, that is good. Keep me posted, — Cirt (talk) 21:09, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

The lede: expand and convert into a standalone summary
1. Ok. Work on the lede in progress... -Well-rested ^Talk 22:10, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
2. By the way, to comply with both WP:LEDE and WP:JWG, I think I'll add refs to the entries in the infobox and then use some of that info (unreferenced) in the lede as appropriate. --Well-rested ^Talk 22:25, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
3. Done - Lede expanded and converted into a standalone summary of the article. -Well-rested ^Talk 03:48, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Splitting some of the information in the "abstracting" section into a "reception" section
1. Ok, I'll try to do this. The problem is that journals don't exactly get reviews and such (like regular books) so I'm not sure if there's enough material for a "reception" section. But I'll see how it goes. --Well-rested ^Talk 22:10, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
2. Done - I included more information on the "reception" of the journal, and included them as part of a new "overview" section. -Well-rested ^Talk 03:48, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Additional sources
1. Yup, there are definitely more sources that can be added. --Well-rested ^Talk 22:10, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
2. Done - Lots more sources added. -Well-rested ^Talk 03:48, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment ad 1.2/ Please don't add references to the infobox. An infobox should not be referenced. If anything needs referencing, that should be in the body of text. --Randykitty (talk) 22:56, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. --Well-rested ^Talk 05:17, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Looking a bit better, I saw a Reception sect, but then it disappeared! Also, best if Overview could be merged into History. — Cirt (talk) 15:03, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well-rested, could you merge the Overview info into the History sect, and move the Reception part of the Overview sect into a Reception sect? I think that is basically about all that's left, — Cirt (talk) 19:49, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done - merged overview and history into an "Overview and history" section, and shifted relevant information into a "Reception" section. -Well-rested ^Talk 22:14, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Passed as GA

Thanks for being so responsive to my recommendations, above. Passed as GA. Excellent quality improvement efforts, — Cirt (talk) 03:24, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And thank you for the very helpful comments! --Well-rested ^Talk 09:13, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]