Template:Did you know nominations/Convergence of accounting standards

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus to promote after 49 days. The nominator, Well-rested (talk · contribs), has not addressed the concerns and has not edited since 29 May 2012.

If Well-rested addresses the concerns raised by BlueMoonset (talk · contribs) before 28 June 2012, Well-rested may undo this close without consulting me on my talk page. Remember to transclude the page again on Template talk:Did you know under a section titled "Articles created/expanded on May 2" if you do so. Cunard (talk) 18:36, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Convergence of accounting standards

(

)

... that accounting standards of various countries are being converged into a single set of standards?

Created/expanded by Well-rested (talk). Self nom at 08:47, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

: the article may need a few tweaks before hitting the main page: (1) Is it worth mentioning financial statements and their audience/purpose somewhere in the lead? (2) v. US-centric, especially the claim in the lead "in particular to reduce the diff between US GAAP and IFRS" - the source for that is the US standards body so that's obviously going to be their main focus - those responsible for UK GAAP or Timbuktu GAAP may well make the same claim; (3) may be worth adding "US" before Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) (4) might be clearer to move current projects to after history; (5) lots of references to PwC none to other firms; (6) what's the difference between IAS and IFRS? (7) is it worth providing a brief explanatory gloss to the criticism re fair value and other technical issues not immediately comprehensible to the layman? (8) what's the process of implementation in the first year - preparation on both bases? (9) are some entities obliged to adopt these standards? listed companies? are others exempt? SMEs? Charities? I think per, er, Supplementary Guideline D7 there's an expectation of a reasonable level of completeness before an article hits the main page, and maybe that's a little more onerous a requirement for such a topic? otherwise hook, length, date all good etc; I see you're well-rested, so hopefully you don't mind these suggestions, Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 19:36, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Note: just left a note on the author's page today about the above issues; we should wait for a response. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:59, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

I... erm... I... wow, that's a lot of suggestions! I'll consider the suggestions in greater detail this coming week, but some quick responses off the top of my head for now:

Yup, I should probably add a quick summary of financial statements in the lede.
Hmmm... I'll have another look at this one. As far as I know, convergence probably is actually US-centric in the sense that GAAP-IFRS convergence has the longest history and has had the most work. But I agree that my POV here might be biased by the fact that the sources are US-centric. I'll think about this one.
Why? Is it unclear as it is? (Honest question)
Probably a good idea - will look at the structure of the article in greater detail this week.
Agreed. Haven't had enough time recently to add more sources. :)
The nomenclature here is actually terribly confusing. To summarize, (a) IFRS usually refers to the entire set of requirements published by the IFRS Foundation; (b) IFRS can also refer to the subset of the requirements that are named "IFRS 1", "IFRS 2" etc; (c) IAS usually refers to another subset of the requirements labelled "IAS 1", "IAS 2", etc; and (d) confusingly, the board that comes up with these standards is called the IASB.
Good point; I'll try to elaborate on that.
Oh that's actually covered in one of the standards. Good point too - I'll add that in if I have the time :)
Yet another good point! And once against I'll add that in if I have the time.

Right, thanks for the suggestions and I'll see how I can implement them these 1-2 weeks. By the way, how will this work? Will the DYK nom be taken down while the article is being improved or something? -Well-rested ^Talk 05:52, 29 May 2012 (UTC)