Talk:Accounting research

Accounting research has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Review: January 31, 2014. (Reviewed version).

A fact from Accounting research appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 4 January 2014 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that the contribution of academic accounting research to the accounting profession includes the assessment and development of accounting practices, and the development of university curricula?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2014/January. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Accounting research.

Wikipedia

Business: Accounting Mid‑importance

	Business portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Business, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of business articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BusinessWikipedia:WikiProject BusinessTemplate:WikiProject BusinessWikiProject Business articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Accounting task force.

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Accounting research/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)[reply]

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

Image review

File:Pacioli.jpg = one image used, image hosted on Wikimedia Commons, image checks out alright. Y.

— Cirt (talk) 17:28, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Stability review

Inspected article edit history going back to article creation, no problems shown.
Looked at article talk page history, no problems there either.

— Cirt (talk) 21:39, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

GA review table analysis

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.	Writing quality is good throughout. Written from a generalist style to introduce readers to key concepts, and it works here.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Good structure for article. Leaves a bit of room for expansion and further research, yes, but good enough at this point in time for GA.
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.	Duly cited throughout.
	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).	Good usage of in-line citations.
	2c. it contains no original research.	Appropriate referencing to secondary sources.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Covers major aspects appropriately.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Certainly no problems here.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	Written in matter of fact tone throughout.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	Article is table, per Stability review, above.
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.	Passes here, per earlier image review, above.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Passes here, per earlier image review, above.
	7. Overall assessment.	Nice job, but I'd recommend further research and expansion please as a final note for potential for further quality improvement past GA. — Cirt (talk) 02:33, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Peer review

Should we subject this article to peer review?Lbertolotti (talk) 15:07, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Accounting research. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131227111624/http://www.accaglobal.com/content/dam/acca/global/PDF-technical/human-capital/rr-120-002.pdf to http://www.accaglobal.com/content/dam/acca/global/PDF-technical/human-capital/rr-120-002.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:26, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Missing streams of accounting research

This article is well written but it neglects significant research streams in accounting, particularly those that are more common outside of the United States. This includes critical, sociological, behavioural, and historical approaches to accounting research. There are numerous reputable academic journals for this research, such as Critical Perspectives on Accounting, Accounting, Organizations and Society, Behavioural Research in Accounting, and Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal.

I will be making an effort over the coming months to update the article to reflect these other areas of research. If you have any suggestions to make, or comments on my edits, I would be delighted to talk here.

BoneClock (talk) 11:33, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The list of topical areas in this article is particularly problematic. The article cited arrives at its categories by definition (see page 643) rather than by deriving them empirically. I'll be looking for a better reference. If anyone has a suggestion, please leave it here.

BoneClock (talk) 21:48, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]