Talk:Accounting ethics/GA1

GA Review

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

I will do the GA Review for this article. H1nkles (talk) 22:51, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

GA Review Philosophy

When I do an article review I like to provide a Heading-by-Heading breakdown of suggestions for how to make the article better. It is done in good faith as a means to improve the article. It does not necessarily mean that the article is not GA quality, or that the issues listed are keeping it from GA approval. I also undertake minor grammatical and prose edits. After I finish this part of the review I will look at the over arching quality of the article in light of the GA criteria and make my determination as to the overall quality of the article.

GA Checklist

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   Prose is ok, but will need polish to move the article beyond GA.

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

2. Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   B. 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):

   C. It contains no original research:

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   More could be added but there is enough here to pass GA.

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   Article meets the GA Criteria and I will pass it. H1nkles (talk) 15:19, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Lead and Importance of ethics

Good quote in the lead, very topical and sums up the importance of the article. Having not yet read through the entire article I can't say for sure if the lead covers all the subjects so I'll save that for later. The writing is clear and concise, a little awkward in the Importance of ethics section, especially in the second sentence, but nothing to cause significant concern. I have to go for now but I'll continue my review later. H1nkles (talk) 23:01, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

History

• "United States accounting societies such as the Association of Government Accountants, Institute of Internal Auditors, and the National Institute of Accountants all had codes of ethics, and many accountants were members of one or more of these societies." Why is this sentence in the past tense? Do these organizations still exist? If so the tone makes it appear as though they no longer have these codes of ethics.

  I reworded the statement. Not sure why I had put that in past tense. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 19:02, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

• I'd like to see this section expanded a bit. This statement, "Due to some accounting scandals and views on the profession..." is pregnant with expansion potential. What views on the profession? I note that you will go into accounting scandals later. What do you think about incorporating it here as part of the History section since these scandals have been instrumental in creating the accounting ethics we have today? Just a suggestion and I'm open to discussion about that. I'll comment further on the structure of the article after I have fully reviewed it.

  I stated my rationale for the layout at the end of the review. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 21:06, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

• The section seems a bit vague, for example, "This thought process along with other criticisms, have led to various increased standards of professionalism while stressing ethics in the work environment." What other criticisms? What historical work was done to increase the standards of professionalism? What prompted this work? H1nkles (talk) 17:13, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

  I reworded the statements. I also moved the sentences on the accounting scandals to that section instead and I think the flow has been improved in the history and accounting scandal sections. Let me know what you think. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 21:06, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Teaching ethics

• I did some copy editing in this section please determine if it still jives with your intentions.

  Edits look good and jives well. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 19:02, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

• The second paragraph about the seven goals that Loeb presents could be expanded. Specifically can you list the seven goals? That seems to be a natural addition to the paragraph. H1nkles (talk) 17:58, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

  I tried something new (at least for me) and added the goals in a quote box on the side. I then expanded the details about attempting to implement the goals. I also switched the locations of the first and third paragraphs to improve the flow of the article. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 20:30, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Accounting scandals

• In the Causes sub section this quote, "... to offer services that made them more consultants and business advisers than auditors." is not attributed to anyone.

  Added author. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 19:02, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

• "A 2007 article..." in what journal/newspaper/website?

  Fixed. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 19:02, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

• I think it would be appropriate to bring out the effects of these scandals. You indicate that Arthur Anderson closed down and resulted in 85,000 job loss, that is a great stat! What about the financial impact on share holders? I know that both Enron and World Com scandals resulted in billions of dollars lost. Both of these scandals had their roots in serious ethical violations. I think outlining the impact accounting ethics violations have on normal working people will help readers understand the gravity of the subject and really drive home the importance of ethical behavior. Your thoughts on this would be most appreciated.

  I added details about the effect on shareholders as well as mention the size of Arthur Anderson. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 21:06, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Overall Review

• Overall the article is very solid. Writing is fair, not great, but passable for GA. The article is stable, neutral, well-sourced, the references are sound and formatted correctly. Images are enough for GA. MOS compliance is good. I think there could be more added to the article to fulfill the comprehensive criteria. I've listed my suggestions above. I also feel that the structure of the article is a little awkward (this isn't a GA Criteria so I won't hold hard and fast to this). The history section refers to accounting scandals that have significantly affected the field of accounting ethics, but then there is an intervening section on ethics education before the reader is introduced to these scandals. Perhaps move the scandals up to be in closer proximity to the history section. I'm open to discussion on this. That concludes my review. I'll hold the article for a week and will check back from time to time to engage in discussion. H1nkles (talk) 18:31, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

  Thanks for reviewing the article, I appreciate it. These comments are very helpful. I had no other article to model off of, and I believe this is the first GA attempt of an ethics article. I tried my best to include as many reliable sources as possible on the subject, and unfortunately many are only available under registration databases. There is an assortment of books available, but I don't have access to many of them (my university library has some and I plan to view those at some point, hopefully during the summer). I believe it is best to leave the accounting scandals section where it is. The history section is more on the development on the ethics. It seems (to me anyway) that keeping the "teaching ethics" section after history allows for readers to see what attempts are being made to instill ethics in accountants. The scandals are for more recent events and are as a result of conflicting with ethics that were/were not taught. I realized that the largest issue with the article was its comprehensiveness, and I figured the current headings at least provided a broad view of the article. Like I said, I do plan on looking into the books that are tailored to the subject and hopefully be able to expand the article further down the line. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 21:06, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

• The article looks better, and after a cursory run-through, I feel better about the comprehensiveness of the article. Certainly more could be added but for GA I think it meets the Criteria. I did note that many of your sources require registration, which as you brought up, is unfortunate. As I'm sure you know that would need to be addressed if the article is to make an FA run. I'm happy to pass the article and it has been an honor to assist you in this as you have given so much to the GA Sweeps project. Please keep up the good work. H1nkles (talk) 15:14, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
• I added the article to the Law section, Ethics sub section of the GA list, if there is a better plact for this article to go please feel free to move it. Cheers! H1nkles (talk) 15:25, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

  Thanks again for reviewing the article, and for passing it. It definitely has a way to go before heading to FA. You're doing an excellent job with Sweeps, and I believe you've reviewed the most articles this month. If every reviewer was going at your pace we'd be done this month. Hopefully it will be a few months more. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 00:01, 20 June 2009 (UTC)