Talk:Convergence of accounting standards/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Antidiskriminator (talk · contribs) 18:03, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am planning to review this article.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 18:03, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

General remarks

I am not an expert in the subject so I apologize in advance if some of my below comments do not make much sense.

The name of the article: Would renaming this article to "International convergence of accounting standards" better meet WP:NAMINGCRITERIA? That is also how the source refers to it.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 18:40, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The short answer is that both terms are in use and clearly mean the same thing (since the convergence of accounting standards is international by definition), so dropping the "International" is more concise. The long answer is that various terms are actually in use; e.g. some sources use "convergence of accounting standards" (examples: 1, 2), others "accounting convergence" (example), others "international convergence of accounting standards" (example), and yet others "convergence of global accounting standards" (example). So given the variety of possible terms, "convergence of accounting standards" seems to be the most concise title that is precise in explaining what the article is about, and that is in common use (WP:CRITERIA). Any suggestions you have are welcome, though. -Well-rested ^Talk 01:31, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for being late with continuing of this review.

The source used to support the definition uses the phrase "International Convergence of Accounting Standards". The whole phrase is under quotation marks. I still think this term better meets WP:NAMINGCRITERIA. Don't you agree? If you do, this article can be renamed, or this term can be specified as alternative name.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 19:47, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Coverage: There are separate sections for European Union, United Kingdom and United States. Nothing on Japan, China,... Is there any particular reason for that?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 20:16, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm open to your suggestions for this. I don't have a good reason for choosing those three regions in particular, to be honest. One issue I had with constructing this section is that most countries are converging in very similar ways, e.g. by requiring or allowing publicly-listed firms to use the IFRS (for reference, here's the country list), so it would be a little repetitive to do a country-by-country breakdown. An idea I had was to do away with any country or region breakdown, but instead to use this section just to describe an overview (with elaboration on interesting cases) of how the IFRS is usually implemented around the world, and leave a country-by-country description to a separate article or list (which I'm considering creating anyway). --Well-rested ^Talk 01:31, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your logic, but choice of regions should not be random. I don't even think it is now. There are probably some sources that can support this choice of regions as some kind of representative sample. Am I right?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 19:51, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Definition - The source clearly emphasize that the term refers both to goal and path. The definition does not mention path.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 20:20, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm failing this review.... this is stale, no edits to this article since January, main contributor to the article haven't really edited in a month, not much of a review but still, this can be renominated Secret ^account 04:07, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]