Talk:Government Accountability Office investigations of the Department of Defense

	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
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Accounting task force.

Military history: North America / United States

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion not met

Associated task forces:
/
	North American military history task force
	United States military history task force

Government Accountability Office investigations of the Department of Defense

Is this name too ambiguous? Does it make clear that the GAO is the one conducting the investigations? Rad Racer 16:41, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Examples

How come losing track of 56 airplanes, 32 tanks, and 36 Javelin missile command launch-units gets one sentence, but raising the price of meals gets a whole paragraph? And also this is related to the supposed loss of 1.1 trillion dollars? Is this notion a weird twist on the facts? if not it should certainly be more explained —The preceding unsigned comment was added by JonM (talk • contribs) 20:36, 15 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Shouldn't this just be with GAO?

I know some of the investigations are big, but shouldn't this page just be part of the GAO's page? 147.240.236.8 15:32, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DoD vs. DOD

The DoD "Manual for Written Material" indicates that "DoD" is preferred to "DOD" (web.archive.org/web/20040829163034/http://biotech.law.lsu.edu/blaw/dodd/corres/pdf/51104m_030204/p51104m.pdf). Cited from United States Department of Defense. DavidMCEddy (talk) 20:16, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Government Accountability Office investigations of the Department of Defense. 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/20050406033457/http://www.house.gov/defazio/102699DERelease.htm to http://www.house.gov/defazio/102699DERelease.htm

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) 15:11, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]