Talk:Japan and the World Bank

Untitled
1. I do not feel satisfied with the lead, as it doesn't really tie in the rest of the post. It does not repeat or summarize any of the information in the following sections. 2. The post is very well structured but could be loaded up with more concrete information. You should add more embedded links to other Wikipedia articles. 3. The past projects chart is a little over kill, as this information can be found on the world banks website directly. PHRD section is missing information and is incomplete. 4. Very good job on making the article neutral. No focus on positive or negative perspectives which is good. 5. More than 6 sources and most of the articles content is linked up with them. Copy right violations do not appear to be present. Evancorn (talk) 19:08, 4 December 2019 (UTC)Evancorn

1. The lead section was a bit too short and does not talk about the relation of Japan to the World Bank that much (such as how and why it is one of the largest creditor, etc). Also, I agree with the reviewer above that it does nto completely tie in with the rest of the article created. 2. The article was structured in a way that is easy to understand. However, the table that the author created was a bit long that it overpowers the other information a bit. Each one of the items in the table could also be embedded with links so readers could go directly to the page that has other info about them. 3. Other sections in the wikipedia page are incomplete but does provide an informal outline of what the author is going to be including/adding 4. The article is neutral and only contains information that are not controversial (or shows perspective/opinion). 5. all information included in the article are gathered from the World Bank therefore, it is reliable. - Photos could be added (maybe of the outcomes of completed projects). Angelaebalo (talk) 19:52, 5 December 2019 (UTC)Angelaebalo

1. For the format, I believe the lead section should be before the content table, which makes better sense to have it on top of everything. For the content, I'm not fully satisfied. It does a good job to introduce us to the article, but there should be more information about the topic in general. 2. It does have a clear structure on the page, things seem to be organized and ordered in a nice manner. But there is a lack of hyperlink to other pages within the Wikipedia domain, there are many could be added. 3. The sections are separated in a very balanced way. It is a good effort to list all the past projects between Japan and the world bank out, but I think it is a bit unnecessary. The article does not try to draw conclusions or convince the reader to the any point of view. 4. overall objective languages used but could be improved to be more neutral with some word choices, especially some ways to describe, and the use of some adjectives. Nothing positive or negative, all the information is mainly neutral. 5. all the sources are reliable, legit sources. But they are all from the World Bank. It could be better if replace some of the sources other than directly from the World Bank.

Since it is still a draft, some information still missing, but an overall good start. Tonamhey (talk) 01:05, 6 December 2019 (UTC)tonamhey

1.The lead section is definitely lacking, there's only the Table of Contents and it does not accurately reflect the contents of the article. 2. I think the article shows promise in providing a clearly organized structure but it does not utilize embedding links to other Wikipedia articles. 3. The article is clearly unfinished, I do feel like the projects section of this article may come off as a little unnecessary and excessive. I do think some of the sources used unbalances the article, the written sections of this article tends to rely on the focus of one reference. 4. The written sections of this article is mainly neutral but often falls short, some of the sentence structure of this article can be further improved. 5. The article so far has 7 references, all from the World Bank. I definitely think the author can further improve this article through diversifying their references. Extra. I want to reiterate that the author should diversify their references as it's mainly from one source. They can definitely utilize scholarly journals or investigative pieces. The article can definitely benefit through the usage of imagery too. Jeffreychui (talk) 01:16, 6 December 2019 (UTC)Jeffreychui

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): Isaccaquino. Peer reviewers: Jeffreychui.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 17:16, 18 January 2022 (UTC)