Talk:Single Audit/GA1

GA Reassessment
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.''

This article has been reviewed as part of WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force in an effort to ensure all listed Good articles continue to meet the Good article criteria. In reviewing the article, I have found there are some issues that may need to be addressed, listed below. I will check back in seven days. If these issues are addressed, the article will remain listed as a Good article. Otherwise, it may be delisted (such a decision may be challenged through WP:GAR). If improved after it has been delisted, it may be nominated at WP:GAN. Feel free to drop a message on my talk page if you have any questions, and many thanks for all the hard work that has gone into this article thus far.

I have some minor concerns about this article, which I will list below, and one major concern. My main worry is that the tone and content make this article look perilously like a "how to" manual. The lead even tells me which federal form to return when the audit is complete. Some sections, like Compliance audit: planning stage, even look like an introductory training manual. Many questions about the audit, as opposed to how the audit is carried out, are left unanswered. For instance, what has the effect been of this audit's introduction? Who pays for the audit? Was its purpose simply to lay the cost on the recipient organizations? How many organizations are within its scope?

My concerns are such that I was tempted to immediately delist this article, but I have instead decided to place it on hold, to allow time for the necessary work to be addressed or for another editor to persuade me that my fears are unfounded. More detailed issues follow:


 * There are several external links in the body of the article, such as at the end of the first paragraph of Purpose and components. External links should only appear in the External links section.


 * There are numerous areas where the text needs work. Some examples:
 * "The auditor must establish audit objectives that determine whether the recipient complied with laws and regulations. They must research the recipient’s federal assistance awards and programs to determine applicability of specific laws and regulations. They must ..."
 * "The federal government provides an extensive array of federal assistance ....". What other kind of assistance could it offer?
 * "This helps the auditor understand the recipient and determine whether it is likely that it does or doesn’t comply with federal laws and regulations." "Conversely, a high-risk determination doesn't mean the recipient is non-compliant, just that they're more likely to be." The tone is several places is too informal for an encyclopedia article; these are just examples.
 * "OMB Circular A-133 requires that federal programs by categorized in two groups ...".
 * "Auditor may consider numerous factors ...".
 * "For any Type A program which are considered to be a high risk .."
 * "The OMB created 14 basic and standard compliance requirements for which recipients must always comply ..."
 * Federal/federal is inconsistently capitalised throughout the article.
 * "... many federal programs have eligibility requirements for individuals or organizations to participate such programs ..."
 * "The federal government provides an extensive array of federal assistance to recipients reaching over $400 billion dollars annually." So the recipients have to reach $400 billion annually? Why is "dollars" repeated after "$"?


 * There are three dead links.

I am also concerned that I can find no evidence that a proper GA review of this article was ever carried out.

--Malleus Fatuorum 00:18, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't see how this article could be categorised as a Good Article, as there is no evidence that the subject matter qualifies for a standalone article under the General notability guideline. There are no reliable secondary sources cited in this article, only the primary sources from the United States Office of Management and Budget are used. Many of the concerns raised by Malleus are symptom of this; there is input from outside sources that would provide some sort of context about the significance of this type of audit. From an overall standpoint, this article reads like a summary or abstract of the related legislation, rather than as an encyclopedic article that could provide insight to the reader about this process. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 08:07, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

As none of the issues raised have been addressed I have delisted this article. --Malleus Fatuorum 20:34, 27 July 2009 (UTC)