Talk:Actuarial credentialing and exams

Finally split

As discussed over the past year or two on Talk:Actuary, I finally split the article. -- Avi (talk) 19:17, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Actuarial credentialing and exams/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Tea with toast (talk · contribs) 18:01, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Review

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.	There are a few too many single standing sentences for the text to represent good quality prose.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	The lead is too short. Please see comments below
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.	Some references still needed
	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.	Because the "Other countries" section is unreferenced, this cannot be determined.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	I think there is still some key information missing
	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.	No images, so no problems here.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	While no images are required for GA, but they are surely welcome! I would suggest a picture of some exam study text books or practice exam material.
	7. Overall assessment.	Please see comments in the section below. I think there is too much work to be accomplished for it too be completed during a "hold" period, so I think it would be better for it to be nominated again at a later time. Best of luck. --Tea with toast (話) 19:06, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Work needing to be done

• The lead is the main section that needs work. There is a lot more information needed to give the article context so that the reader can follow the rest of the article well. Things you may wish include in the lead:
  • A bit of background and history. When did credentialing exams begin? Who were the first accrediting societies, and what influence did they have over others that followed?
  • Why are credential exam important?
  • Explain the hierarchy of positions and different disciplines of actuarial science. Examples: distinguish between a fellow and an associate, compare if there are different disciplines that need more or less exams than others.
  • The term "formally responsible" occurs later in the article. What does this mean and to which disciplines/positions does this apply?

• Other sections that need improvement:
  • The section on Germany needs expansion. Are all 13 exams needed to be passed to obtain a job, or are only some needed for certain disciplines?
  • The Mexico section lists different schools, but it does not mention exams. Do students gain their credentials upon graduation, or is an official exam required?
  • The "Other Countries" section needs expansion, and needs to cite at least 1 source.

• Also, the text as mentions the International Actuarial Association and that some countries exams are recognized by it. This association appear to me to be rather important, and perhaps some more time should be dedicated to explaining what it is and how it influences exam requirements in certain countries.

Best of luck, and happy editing! --Tea with toast (話) 19:27, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Oops, I forgot to mention that 3 of the links in the "external links" tab were found to be dead. Please fix. Thanks! --Tea with toast (話) 19:37, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your time. You raised a lot of good points which I, or others, will hope to get to over time. Thanks again! -- Avi (talk) 01:44, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Merger proposal

I propose that Actuarial exam be merged into Actuarial credentialing and exams. The former article is pretty much US centric, and, for the time being, is better served being merged in to a general article. -- Avi (talk) 00:03, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

• Support - As mentioned, this article is more globally complete and has good sources, which obviates two of the issues plaguing the other article for a year and a half now. The other article is actually a proper subset of this one in terms of topic as well. It will not be difficult to bring in any extra information in that article and adapt it to the reference style found in this one. Lastly, this article has the benefit of a WP:GA review, and thus has good suggestions as to how it can be improved. -- Avi (talk) 00:08, 25 June 2012 (UTC)