Talk:Bosnia and Herzegovina and the International Monetary Fund

Untitled
The lead section is well balanced and is helpful to understand the main features of the topic. It also present information that are not repeated in other part of the article.

The sections are well organized, but I would develop them. I think there could be dedicated a section for every project in order to give a more complete view of the topic.

All the sections are important in order to understand the topic, no one of them is off topic. I think that it would be helpful to add a section concerning the critics made to the intervention of the IMF in Bosnia.

Language is very objective and neutral, and it is impossible to guess the perspective of the author. I think that there could be inserted the viewpoint of different actors regarding the topic. The sources are good: mainly the IMF with few exceptions, maybe the sources from Wikipedia could be substituted with something else. Every sentence is supported by a source. There is only one quote, but I would not reformulate it.

Overall, I think that the article could be developed including paragraphs concerning the descriptions of every past IMF intervention in the country and the comments made by critics and supporter of these. Luca Policino (talk) 02:22, 5 December 2019 (UTC) Luca Policino

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): Charmandxr. Peer reviewers: Zsulick.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 18:15, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Peer Review
1) Yes, the lead paragraph has significant facts about Bosnia and Herzegovina’s past IMF involvement and the importance of these statistics. And, after reading the entire post the other sections seem to delve deeper into the topics that were originally addressed. It seems that all of the topics share an appropriate amount of “weight”.

2) Great structure! Some of the Wikipedia links ( synecdochically for example) were really helpful and the entire piece shows a clear and organized message. The ordering of general information, economic structures, followed by IMF intervention is logical and easy to understand.

3) It seems naive to say that nothing is left out since the article is only four paragraphs long. However, the information provided seems necessary and to be a good use of the space, leaving room for other Wiki authors to add and grow from this piece. The article seems neutral and filled with legitimate sources that strive to provide information without pressuring the reading to think one way or another.

4) As previously stated the article comes off as being neutral and factual. It provides information about the subject without forcing any particular perspective.

5) The author used 12 reliable sources and they were properly formatted in the “References” section of the article.

EXTRA! All of the links used seemed relevant and necessary and the modest use of photos allowed for strong photographic representation without being too overwhelming. Zsulick (talk) 00:10, 6 December 2019 (UTC)