Wikipedia:Peer review/Accounting and Finance Association of Australia and New Zealand/archive1

Accounting and Finance Association of Australia and New Zealand

I've listed this article for peer review because I'm looking to verify the article's notability and have added additional references. I've done significant research on the topic and am looking for any feedback that would help to improve it. Thank you in advance!

Thanks, Tinylucy191 (talk) 03:24, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi Tinylucy191, thanks for the chance to review this article.

Notability

The general test for notability is that "if a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list."

• The following sources appear to not be "significant coverage" due to being very short or due to mentioning AFAANZ only briefly in an article mainly on another topic:
  • A Dictionary of Accounting (very short)
  • charityguide.com.au (very short)
  • 2015 article by the University of Western Australia (little information about the organisation itself, and is short)
  • QUT Business School 2019 article (very short)
  • "CA ANZ Events, Conferences, Workshops & eLearning Courses" (doesn't seem to mention AFAANZ at all)
  • Gary Monroe's profile at UNSW, and other profiles of specific people at academic websites (the articles are not about AFAANZ and only mention it in passing or not at all)
  • "Accountants recognised in Australia Day Honours List" (article is not about AFAANZ, only mentions the org in passing)
  • In The Black article (article is not about AFAANZ, only mentions the org in passing)
• The following sources are not independent:
  • All links to AFAANZ's website
  • All links to journals published by AFAANZ or its predecessor organisation
  • All information on the Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission website (the commission states that all details in its register were provided by the charity).

This article therefore has no significant coverage in independent sources. The first thing you need to do to improve this article (and indeed demonstrate that Wikipedia should have an article on this subject at all) is research for and add multiple sources that are independent of AFAANZ and which discuss the organisation in significant detail. If none can be found, consider submitting this article for deletion.

Use of primary sources

It appears that a lot of the material is sourced only from primary sources, that is, publications by AFAANZ. For minor uncontroversial facts, it is often ok to use primary sources, preferably making the article clear that this information comes from the subject of the article. For example, "According to AFAANZ, its purpose is to...". However, the majority of the article should be sourced from independent sources.

Further, a lot of the text appears to be word-for-word from AFAANZ publications. This is bad for two reasons. Firstly and most importantly, those sources are copyrighted and Wikipedia does not have the right to use large chunks of unedited text, especially when unattributed. Secondly, taking the subject's writing verbatim carries a risk that the article will give their point of view, rather than a neutral tone.

Further review

I think that these two issues are substantial in themselves so I will stop my review here. I have left the article's quality rating at Start-class for the issues discussed above. If you resolve these issues and want further review, tag me in the review request.

Yours, HenryCrun15 (talk) 03:50, 28 January 2021 (UTC)