Talk:Belarus and the International Monetary Fund

Untitled
User talk:Josephinaafig/sandbox

1. I think the lead section you have right now is very informative, I would maybe say make it more of an introduction or summary than only informative.

2. I do not see a structure as of right now, other than two paragraphs, so I would say, for the future, when you write more to create separate headings for each section. You can read any Wikipedia article to see what I am talking about.

3. I think the two paragraphs you do have are very balanced with background, history, data, statistics, and information regarding Belarus and the International Monetary Fund.

4. I think you are writing with a very professional and neutral tone that is only that of an informative one, which I think is very good. Keep that up throughout your paper, regardless of what the content or subject is.

5. As of right now, I only see four sources, but they are all reliable sources by the International Monetary Fund, and a resource I had never previously heard of before - The Observatory of Economics.

WilliamLi1998 (talk) 03:59, 4 December 2019 (UTC)WilliamLi1998

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 1 October 2019 and 14 December 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Josephinaafig.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 17:55, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

#2 Peer Review
1- The beginning of this passage could work well as the lead section. 2- More clear structure and embedded links needed. 3- The coverage is balanced since you mention some people support the IMF and some are reluctant. More details could be added. 4- The tone is objective. The use of data helps to provide with a more objective fact. 5- Missing two resources. Where do you find that Belarus is reluctant to use the IMF fund at this time? Sources needed. Cloudyd858 (talk) 20:53, 5 December 2019 (UTC)Cloudyd858

#2 Peer Review
1. I enjoyed the introduction/leading section with the background information given. Sources are needed however for your information being presented. 2. The use of embedded links and sub-headings are recommended to strengthen your page and make it more engaging. Embedded citations are needed too. 3. I don't see any information given being off-topic but could be given more details and sources to support and strengthen the page. 4. The language is subjective and neutral as it doesn't try to persuade you or use option. Facts are given. 5. I do believe the use of more sources is strongly needed to be added here. I see few sources used, more sources may be helpful to strengthen the page. Only copyright violations I saw were where citations are not being used.

Images and links could help. No images here.

Derick996 (talk) 02:37, 6 December 2019 (UTC)Derick996Derick996 (talk) 02:37, 6 December 2019 (UTC)