Talk:Accounting research/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Cirt (talk · contribs) 17:23, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I will review this article. — Cirt (talk) 17:23, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

File:Pacioli.jpg = one image used, image hosted on Wikimedia Commons, image checks out alright. Y.

— Cirt (talk) 17:28, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Stability review

Inspected article edit history going back to article creation, no problems shown.
Looked at article talk page history, no problems there either.

— Cirt (talk) 21:39, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

GA review table analysis

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	Writing quality is good throughout. Written from a generalist style to introduce readers to key concepts, and it works here.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Good structure for article. Leaves a bit of room for expansion and further research, yes, but good enough at this point in time for GA.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	Duly cited throughout.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	Good usage of in-line citations.
	2c. it contains no original research.	Appropriate referencing to secondary sources.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Covers major aspects appropriately.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Certainly no problems here.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	Written in matter of fact tone throughout.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	Article is table, per Stability review, above.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	Passes here, per earlier image review, above.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Passes here, per earlier image review, above.
	7. Overall assessment.	Nice job, but I'd recommend further research and expansion please as a final note for potential for further quality improvement past GA. — Cirt (talk) 02:33, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]