Talk:Fund accounting/GA1

GA Review

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

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of the discussion was to promote this article to GA status.

---

Reviewer: RCSprinter123 (talk) 15:49, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Right, lets get cracking.

Clear, yes.

Concise, yes.

Spelling, yes.

MOS: Lead section, yes. Layout, correct. Words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation, yes.

Refs - section Overview has no citations.; section Opening Entries has no citations. ; sectins Other Expenditures and Closing Entries have no citations.

The references that are there are reliable though.

No original research.

Broad in its coverage.

Neutral and stable, yes - no edit wars.

However there isn't a single image on the whole page. But the criteria says if possible so .

Now, there are nine s and four s, so the majority speaks for itself. Get the s cleaned up and there will be a good article. Please reply to the discussion below. RCSprinter123 (talk) 16:04, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I've added citations for the Overview, Opening entry, Other expenditures, and Closing entry sections. My citations included some additional notes that I felt necessary to explain the subject clearly. Getting a picture or image is more complicated, as fund accounting is an abstract concept. I suppose I could add a picture of a fire truck or something else governments buy. Suggestions? Folklore1 (talk) 20:34, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Right then, well, all the citations are fine now, but having a picture really doesn't matter, especially as it is not something you can actually have a picture of. Perhaps you could put an accountant on or something. Rcsprinter_{See what I've done}^{Gimme a message} 15:24, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

I've added an old picture from Wikimedia. Folklore1 (talk) 13:32, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, that's fine. Now, you're getting 380 views a day on average, so we know there will be plenty of people going to look at this Good Article. There have been 66 contributors, four of which were bots and 29 anonymous IP edits. You have the most edits, even though you are not the page creator. There are fewer than thiry watchers, and a wide selection of pages which link here. There are no tags, dead links, or "Citation Needed" tags. I think the picture you have on now is OK, and so I think it may be ready to be a Good Article. See what you think, add some comments if you like, or I'll call it. Rcsprinter_{See what I've done}^{Gimme a message} 15:38, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

As I contributed significantly to the article and nominated it for GA, someone else should make the call. So, please do so. Folklore1 (talk) 17:31, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

What exactly do you mean by that? Rcsprinter_{See what I've done}^{Gimme a message} 15:17, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

If you think it qualifies as a Good Article now, please approve the nomination. Folklore1 (talk) 14:49, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Allright, I'm listing it now. Rcsprinter_{See what I've done}^{Gimme a message} 09:17, 3 April 2011 (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.