Wikipedia:Peer review/Institute of Chartered Accountants of India/archive2

Institute of Chartered Accountants of India[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
This is the second time I am nominating this article for peer review. I hope, I have rectified all the comments given in the previous peer review. I am proposing to nominate the article for Good Article assessment, hence I would like to confirm whether the article fully complies with the good article criteria present at WP:GA?. Please provide a comprehensive review on that basis.

Thanks, R.Sivanesh ✆ 08:53, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Finetooth comments: This is a good start but far from ready for WP:GAN. The prose is generally clear, but the article does not meet the WP:V guidelines because many paragraphs lack inline citations to reliable sources. Also, the article does not yet meet several Manual of Style guidelines such as those related to linking, citation formatting, and abbreviations. In addition, compressing some of the sections would make the article more appealing to the average reader, who probably does not plan to be an accountant. I would aim for something much more succinct and well-sourced.

Considerable parts of the article lack citations to reliable sources. For example, the first paragraph of the "History" section, is unsourced even though it contains information that is not common knowledge. My rule of thumb is to provide a source for every paragraph (except, usually, in the lead) as well as every set of statistics, every direct quotation, and every unusual claim. If a single source supports all of the claims in an entire paragraph, the inline citation should be placed right after the terminal punctuation of the paragraph's last sentence. An in-line citation in the middle of paragraph does not apply to the later parts of the paragraph; for example, the first two paragraphs of the "Motto and Mission" section have parts that are unsourced even though other parts are sourced. What about the unsourced parts? Where did the information come from? These are only examples; similar problems occur throughout the article.

The article may go into a bit too much detail in places. For example, it's hard to imagine that a general audience would want to know in great detail how to become a chartered accountant by examination. Perhaps some of the material could be compressed, and readers who want to become accountants could use the "Reference" and "External links" sections to navigate to sources with complete details.

The article has many very short sections and subsections, which make it seem choppy. It might be better to merge some of these to make longer sections.

Quite a few of the citations are incomplete. Citations to web sites should include author, title, publisher, date of publication, URL, and date of most recent access, if all of those can be found.

The tools in the toolbox at the top of this review page fine one dead URL in the citations and eight links that go to disambiguation pages instead of their intended targets.

Generally, abbreviated terms should be spelled out as well as abbreviated on first use. In the existing article, many are, but some, like AICPA in the second sentence of the lead, are not.

Generally, linking a term once in the lead and perhaps once again in the main text is enough. Linking terms multiple times or linking terms already familiar to most readers is counterproductive; readers may simply ignore all links if too many things are linked. For example, "company" is linked twice in the lead, "Ministry of Finance" is linked twice in the "Role" section. These are only examples.

Please make sure that the existing text includes no copyright violations, plagiarism, or close paraphrasing. For more information on this please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches. (This is a general warning given in view of previous problems that have risen over copyvios.)

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider commenting on any other article at WP:PR. I don't usually watch the PR archives or make follow-up comments. If my suggestions are unclear, please ping me on my talk page. Finetooth (talk) 03:02, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

R.Sivanesh reply:Thank you Finetooth for valuable review. But for your comments I would have know that the article has so many issue. I will try to rectify your comments one by one. I will not nominate for GAN before these comments are rectified. I need one clarification. Almost the whole of the history section is from a book call "History of the Accounting Profession in India" by G.P.Kapadia. So is it ok if I add one ref at the end of the para? Will it suffice? R.Sivanesh ✆ 11:13, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, as long as you are careful to summarize in your own words and as long as the whole paragraph is supported by Kapadia. If, on the other hand, only most of the claims are supported by Kapedia and one or more claims supported by others, you'll need inline citations that make clear which claims are supported by which sources. The second paragraph of the "History" section, for example, already has citations to two different sources. I'm assuming that citation 14 covers the first two sentences and that citation 15 covers the next three sentences. The last three sentences are not supported by anything (so far). Looking more closely at citation 14 to Kapedia's book, I see that it lacks a page number, publisher, and place of publication. If you cite Kapedia multiple times, you will probably be citing different pages. Those should be added, and any other references to book-length works, journal articles, or long PDF documents should include the page(s) being cited. These details not only make the claims more easy to verify but are helpful to other researchers and increase the value of the encyclopedia. Finetooth (talk) 18:30, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]