Talk:Fund accounting

Fund accounting 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.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
April 3, 2011	Good article nominee	Listed

Business: Accounting Low‑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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Accounting task force.

Short

This is a very short article based on a large subject. It doesn't even list the different funds used in fund accounting, let alone their uses. It does not specifically discuss that Fund Accounting usually relies on cash-based accounting system, which presents several reconciliation and reporting problems when presenting financial statements.

Governmental Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GGAAP) should be moved to a new article, since fund accounting does not exclusively apply to governmental entities. Mtmelendez 15:08, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It would be nice to see examples of a general fund with a budget, the entries to post it to a ledger (by using an actual form), examples of opening entries, an example of daily entries and then closing entries, followed by the fund balance being transferred to the next year. To see it actually laid out like that would be very helpful. Unfortunately, I do not have the expertise to do it myself.MHuntington 07:21, 28 September 2006

I removed the "stub" tag and replaced it with an "expand" tag after adding a lists of fund types and the Basis of Accounting section. The article still needs something about Federal Government funds. I'm not sure how far the article should go in providing examples of budgets and ledger entries; it has to be limited to just a few or the article could become textbook-sized, too big for an encyclopedia. Folklore1 (talk) 15:34, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

After adding text about Federal Government funds and a section of general fund entries for a fictitious city government, I removed the Expand tag. I've kept it very simple, and chose not to mention encumbrances. If you think the article needs more of something somewhere, please mention what you'd like to see. Folklore1 (talk) 19:10, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal to add link to accounting math book

Previously, I added a link to my free accounting math book; however, that was in violation of the conflict of interest policy. So now I am proposing that someone else add the external link to the book. It has a section that mathemacically describes Fund Accounting, which is appropriate for this article. The URL to the book is *Fund Accounting Mathematically Described. Timhowardriley 17:08, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chapters 16-20 of Tim Riley's book are definitely relevant. I like the examples and supporting math given for recording fund accounting transactions. So, I've added an external link. Folklore1 (talk) 14:35, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Recording Methods and Software

This section discusses a minor detail of Fund Accounting. Should it be a part of this article? Is it appropriate to include information at this level of detail? Folklore1 (talk) 13:08, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Probably not, the section is unsourced and a potential spam magnet – until sources are found, language like "For this reason, many nonprofit organizations and the public sector will often use off-the-shelf or custom-designed accounting software that is flexible enough to accommodate the needs of special reporting" begs for the addition of ", such as SuperCPA's SuperFundManager". --CliffC (talk) 18:23, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I removed this section from the article. If you feel something about "recording methods" should be included, please provide references and avoid statements endorsing software brand names. Folklore1 (talk) 17:57, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

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

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of the discussion was to promote this article to GA status.

Reviewer: RCSprinter123 (talk) 15:49, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Right, lets get cracking.

Clear, yes.

Concise, yes.

Spelling, yes.

MOS: Lead section, yes. Layout, correct. Words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation, yes.

Refs - section Overview has no citations.; section Opening Entries has no citations. ; sectins Other Expenditures and Closing Entries have no citations.

The references that are there are reliable though.

No original research.

Broad in its coverage.

Neutral and stable, yes - no edit wars.

However there isn't a single image on the whole page. But the criteria says if possible so .

Now, there are nine s and four s, so the majority speaks for itself. Get the s cleaned up and there will be a good article. Please reply to the discussion below. RCSprinter123 (talk) 16:04, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've added citations for the Overview, Opening entry, Other expenditures, and Closing entry sections. My citations included some additional notes that I felt necessary to explain the subject clearly. Getting a picture or image is more complicated, as fund accounting is an abstract concept. I suppose I could add a picture of a fire truck or something else governments buy. Suggestions? Folklore1 (talk) 20:34, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Right then, well, all the citations are fine now, but having a picture really doesn't matter, especially as it is not something you can actually have a picture of. Perhaps you could put an accountant on or something. Rcsprinter_{See what I've done}^{Gimme a message} 15:24, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've added an old picture from Wikimedia. Folklore1 (talk) 13:32, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that's fine. Now, you're getting 380 views a day on average, so we know there will be plenty of people going to look at this Good Article. There have been 66 contributors, four of which were bots and 29 anonymous IP edits. You have the most edits, even though you are not the page creator. There are fewer than thiry watchers, and a wide selection of pages which link here. There are no tags, dead links, or "Citation Needed" tags. I think the picture you have on now is OK, and so I think it may be ready to be a Good Article. See what you think, add some comments if you like, or I'll call it. Rcsprinter_{See what I've done}^{Gimme a message} 15:38, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As I contributed significantly to the article and nominated it for GA, someone else should make the call. So, please do so. Folklore1 (talk) 17:31, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly do you mean by that? Rcsprinter_{See what I've done}^{Gimme a message} 15:17, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you think it qualifies as a Good Article now, please approve the nomination. Folklore1 (talk) 14:49, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Allright, I'm listing it now. Rcsprinter_{See what I've done}^{Gimme a message} 09:17, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Peer review

Should we subject this article to peer review? Lbertolotti (talk) 15:16, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Needs to be expanded to other countries

This article only refers to fund accounting in the U.S. It should be expanded to include other accounting guidelines, especially the international ones, used by many countries around the world. Carsya (talk) 21:15, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Surprised to find a article about a general topic of accounting which is so strongly focused on only the US perspective categorized as a Good Article. Done some work today try and give it a bit more of a world wide view. ThinkingTwice ^{contribs | talk} 15:30, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@ThinkingTwice and Carsya: Are you happy enough with the globalisation now to remove the tag or does it need more work? AIRcorn (talk) 23:38, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The article now has some information about fund accounting in another country, so I removed the Globalisation tag. Folklore1 (talk) 17:24, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Fund accounting. 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/20101214032217/http://www.controller.ucsb.edu/ResourcesandPresentations/pdf/deskmanual/fund_accounting.pdf to http://www.controller.ucsb.edu/ResourcesandPresentations/pdf/deskmanual/fund_accounting.pdf
Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.marylandtaxes.com/finances/revenue/reports/cafr/cafr2009.pdf
Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.marylandtaxes.com/finances/revenue/reports/cafr/cafr2009.pdf
Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.marylandtaxes.com/finances/revenue/reports/cafr/cafr2009.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) 22:14, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]