Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Accounting period/1

Accounting period

 * • Watch article reassessment page • GAN review not found
 * Result: Delist per unanimous consensus below. Geometry guy 20:30, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Accounting Period in a general sense does not mean the meaning expressed in the article. The term has been defined with reference to United Kingdom Income Tax but the term has a global meaning apart from it. Accounting Period actually denotes a period for which Accounts are balanced and a balance sheet is prepared at the end. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SivaneshR (talk • contribs)


 * comment I think disambiguating this page would solve the problem, which has been noted by others at the talk page. I have done so, and removed the NPOV template. However, i do not think this article is at GA quality. The only citations are from the official rules themselves, giving a section by section interpretation. But no secondary sources are used, and no discussion of its role in society/business. There are too many small sections, some completely uncited, and short sentences or embedded lists. Generally, i find the writing to be sub-optimal, with far to much "If xxx happens, then yyyy" - we are WP:NOT an accounting guide. Hence, Delist. (note: The orginal editor who got this to GA seems to have stopped editing shorly afterwards in 2007) YobMod 13:19, 6 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Delist, not for the nominator's reasons but because the article uses only primary sources. Articles "should rely primarily on reliable, third-party, published sources" according to Reliable sources. The GA criteria require broad coverage and a neutral point of view; using only one primary source accomplishes neither. —Noisalt (talk) 19:07, 12 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment. The exclusive use of primary sources is very troubling. Certainly there are good secondary sources which may be used (for example, for U.S. accounting issues one would turn to the Journal of Accountancy or similar publications as reliable secondary sources.) Unless this is corrected quickly the article should be delisted. Majoreditor (talk) 02:05, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delist. The article hasn't improved. There is still a significant lack of secondary sources. Majoreditor (talk) 20:59, 18 July 2009 (UTC)