Talk:Compliance requirements

Good article review comments

I believe the article meets the Good Article criteria. I do, however, have some suggestions that I think would improve the article:

• Add an illustration such as scanning the cover from a paper copy of one of the Compliance Requirements (CR) or uploading a screen shot as an image file from the front page of a CR URL.
• Add a "Background" section to the article that explains in greater detail why the CR's were written and published and the history behind them, such as who ordered it, when they were written and by who.
• Add a section on how they can be accessed by the general public, whether by web only, or if paper copies are available and how, or if also available by other media (CD, DVD, etc). Also, how does access to the instructions comply with federal statutes such as the disabilities acts (for access to government services), etc.
• What government agency maintains the CRs, when are they updated, and how is the public informed of any updates or changes to the CRs?

The article contains really good, detailed, information and I congratulate you on passing the GA review. Cla68 07:01, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! I agree on your recommendations. I'll try to add them soon. - Mtmelendez ^{(Talk|UB|Home)} 12:24, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Compliance requirements/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

Starting GA reassessment as part of the GA Sweeps process. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:50, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Checking against GA criteria

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   I repaired one dead link and tagged two others for which no archived version could be found using WP:CHECKLINKS  Done

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   No images used

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   Just two dead links to be addressed. On hold for seven days, major contributors and projects will be notified.

   OK, dead links have been removed. Keep GA status. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:29, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

Compliance requirements

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: Consensus to delist. Queen of Hearts (talk) 03:13, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

This 2007 addition has 5 citation needed templates. I am also concerned on the broadness of the article; currently it is like a summary of the directives, no history of how it was created or necessary background information, updates to the directives throughout the years, etc. Spinixster (trout me!) 10:17, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

• Delist as overwhelmingly primary sourced. There's maybe three trivial secondary sources used inline currently? SnowFire (talk) 04:06, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.