Talk:Voluntary disclosure

Just created...

Just created the article, and will hopefully find time to expand it further in the near future. -Well-rested^Talk 21:50, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Voluntary disclosure/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Cirt (talk · contribs) 17:23, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

I will review this article. — Cirt (talk) 17:23, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Image review

• File:Hauptbuch Hochstetter vor 1828.jpg = one image used, image hosted on Wikimedia Commons, checks out okay. Y.

— Cirt (talk) 17:27, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Stability review

1. Looked at article edit history going back over one year, no issues there.
2. Inspected article talk page history going back over one year, no problems there either.

— Cirt (talk) 21:38, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Good article nomination on hold

This article's Good Article promotion has been put on hold. During review, some issues were discovered that can be resolved without a major re-write. This is how the article, as of January 31, 2014, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?:

1. NOTE: Please respond below entire GA Review, and not interspersed throughout, thanks!
2. Writing quality is alright for GA, except it's a bit choppy at times.
3. There are a few one-sentence-long paragraphs and other ultra short paragraphs that should be expanded upon.
4. Types and examples of voluntary disclosures = this sect has lots of clauses and incomplete unsourced sentences. I know citations are given above in this same sect, but these should be expanded to paragraph format with in-line citations.
5. The whole writing style and presentation just seems quite choppy and not in-depth enough, I'll give you some more time to do additional research and try to expand the article a bit more.

2. Factually accurate?: Duly cited throughout.

3. Broad in coverage?:

1. The article covers major aspects, but not in enough detail, as already mentioned in this review, above.
2. Missing: = some info on noteworthy examples.
3. Were there examples of companies that were harmed as a result of not performing voluntary disclosure?
4. Were there noteworthy examples of companies that performed voluntary disclosures but the disclosures were deemed inaccurate, fraudulent, or incomplete?
5. A total of seven (7) references are cited here, on a topic where I'm sure many more secondary sources discuss and cover this subject matter. Perhaps additional research would likely show other sources cover the topic from additional viewpoints. I'd suggest trying to expand the article with at least thirteen (13) additional sources.
6. Missing: The article could use a Commentary or Analysis sect.
7. What do academics think of the voluntary disclosure practice?
8. What do current and former finance officials, government representatives, and businesspeople think of voluntary disclosure?
9. Have these people found voluntary disclosure to be effective? A waste of time?
10. These are all things that should be discussed in the article from viewpoints from multiple different secondary sources.

4. Neutral point of view?: No problems here, written with a neutral tone throughout.

5. Article stability? Passes here, see above comments.

6. Images?: Passes here, see above comments.

NOTE: Please respond below entire GA Review, and not interspersed throughout, thanks!

Please address these matters soon and then leave a note here showing how they have been resolved. After 48 hours the article should be reviewed again. If these issues are not addressed within 7 days, the article may be failed without further notice. Thank you for your work so far. — Cirt (talk) 03:38, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

• Thanks for the review. I'll try to respond to the specific points as soon as I can. --Well-rested^Talk 21:09, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Alright, sounds good, keep me posted, — Cirt (talk) 21:10, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Comments

• Finally getting round to working on this; see specific comments below. -Well-rested^Talk 01:05, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

The writing

• I agree that the writing is somewhat choppy and that the content could be expanded more. I'll get round to doing this soon. -Well-rested^Talk 01:05, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Coverage

• Again, agreed that the coverage could be broader. I'll add more content soon, and thanks for the your suggestions. -Well-rested^Talk 01:05, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Last edit on February 12, review apparently abandoned, so I'm failing it. If you come back to edit the concerns given in the article, it can be renominated. Thanks Secret ^account 02:23, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

I left multiple queries for the nominator. Wasn't abandoned by me! :( Hopefully the nominator will revisit and address issues at a later date. — Cirt (talk) 03:24, 4 March 2014 (UTC)