Talk:Jamaica and the International Monetary Fund

Organize the Talk Section
this talk section is a mess, needs organization ASAP

The Mess
1. The background section includes a brief synopsis about the overall relationship. However, some examples or logistics of the interventions might be helpful in understanding the entirety of the relationship.

2. The content of the page is good. It might be helpful to clean up the structure. That is break up the IMF's SBA's.. section into a couple paragraphs so that it is easier to follow. The information is clear, but there is the flow could use some touchup. It is easy to follow chronologically.

3. The coverage is semi-balanced. I suggest incorporating resources that are news articles that takes into account the intervention and maybe adding some perspectives to the relationship. Such that there is a section that might break down why some might think IMF intervention in Jamaica is good and why others do not.

4. The content is neutral and objective. There is no personal perspective, but as mentioned above there might be some way to incorporate maybe the failings or the successes of each or a particular intervention.

5. The sources seem to be reliable. There are however some unknown ones, which if I was skeptical, I would question the validity of. It was thoroughly spread out in terms of coverage. It doesn't seem to rely on a single perspective. I cannot say with certainty that there is copyright but it might be beneficial to rewrite/revise some of the IMF's SBA section.

Nariaszu (talk) 21:32, 6 December 2018 (UTC)Nariaszu'''

The lead section of the article is very clear in describing what the article is about. The topics and information included flow smoothly and the structure is well thought of as it simply explains the presence of the IMF in Jamaica. Jsihite (talk) 01:34, 6 December 2018 (UTC)Jsihite

The structure of the article follows the titles and headings that were included. The information within each heading is clear and direct and does not mislead or confuse the reader. Jsihite (talk) 01:34, 6 December 2018 (UTC)Jsihite

The article is well balanced and no specific heading or subheading contains more information then other sections. The article is also very detailed in the last heading giving the reader a better picture of today's situation with the IMF in Jamaica. Jsihite (talk) 01:34, 6 December 2018 (UTC)Jsihite

The article is well communicated and does not seem to take a side with the IMF or Jamaica. However, the second heading with the IMF interventions and EFF payment plans could appear like the author is sympathetic towards Jamaica given the history of the IMF. Jsihite (talk) 01:34, 6 December 2018 (UTC)Jsihite

The author does a good job of using plenty of references in their article. The credibility of these sources are also good as they come from the IMF website or government sites as opposed to news articles and blog sites. Jsihite (talk) 01:34, 6 December 2018 (UTC)Jsihite

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 1. Lead Section: There is no real lead section I suppose? The background section is a good first overiew. Maybe you can add some information about the current relationship to it and use it as an introduction. Then go a bit more into detail about the background in another section.

2. Clear Structure: The article overall is well structured. I like that you chronologically touch upon the different topics, ending with the current relationship. You used headings and embedded other articles which is good. The explanation of the SBA and EFF as the two most important incidents is well elaborated. However, you should decrease the font size and should decrease the size of the picture at the top of the page.

3. Balanced Coverage: I think the lengths of the different sections is appropriate. Like mentioned, the SBA and EFF deserve sufficient attention which you gave to them. There are no conclusions that you draw, which is good. You elaborate on the background, the most important projects and the current relationship which is a good way to balance your article. In the current relationship part you could maybe move a little bit beyond the numbers and talk about what has been achieved recently( a quick google brought me to this page e.g. https://www.imf.org/en/News/Articles/2018/06/15/pr18239-imf-staff-concludes-visit-to-jamaica ).

4. Neutral Content: Your language is objective. Because you mostly used hard facts, e.g. numbers of loans and corresponding years, the article is informative and does not seem to be biased in any direction. There is also no focus on either positive or negative information in particular, which is good. Overall the article is neutral.

5. Reliable Sources: The sources are mostly reliable (IMF, National Library of Jamaica, Jamaican Gleaner). However, I have never heard of the webpage "biography.yourdictionary.com" so I don't know whether you should include it. You have a lot of sources cited at the bottom and in-text, but since you use some of those multiple times, you can just cite them one time at the bottom and keep using that number in the text on multiple occasions (e.g. "Jamaica And The IMF —". diGJamaica. 9 January 2013.)

JulianMarenz (talk) 02:30, 6 December 2018 (UTC)JulianMarenz ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________