Talk:Cayman Islands Society of Professional Accountants/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: LT910001 (talk · contribs) 11:38, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Good day, if there are no objections I'll take this review. I haven't had any part in creating or editing this article. I welcome the contributions of other editors or interested parties during this review. LT90001 (talk) 11:38, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Edit: I will be posting my assessment tomorrow along with any proposed changes to meet the GA criteria. LT90001 (talk) 11:40, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
	2b. 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).
	2c. it contains no original research.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.

This article is not broad enough in coverage to warrant GA status. Some areas that could be covered to fix this include:

• What specifically the society is (eg a voluntary society, a certifying body, ...?) and how one becomes a member
• The history of the society
• Some specific examples of what the society does
• Discussion of the headquarters or places in which the society operates.
• Further discussions of interactions between the society and other professional bodies.
• Some examples of why the society is notable (famous events, members)
• Some examples of how the society interacts with the Cayman islands
• A discussion of any activities the society does, the society's purpose

These are provided as some examples of things that could be included to make the article more broad in coverage; this is not written as a prescriptive list that must be filled for GA to be achieved.

Kind regards, LT90001 (talk) 10:57, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

No response for ~2 weeks. Nominator last edited in September. Am closing review and failing based on lack of broadness. Is a pity that this article took so long to receive a review. LT910001 (talk) 11:43, 19 October 2013 (UTC)