Talk:Kenya and the World Bank

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): JSilver97. Peer reviewers: Jose Cajero.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 23:39, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Feedback
Lead: Lead covers a lot of information that could be used in subsections. This makes it a little hard to follow as the information jumps to multiple topics.

Structure: Maybe add an involvement subheading from the lead. Love how you connected to other Wikipedia articles like coal-fired power plant and Lamu.

Balanced coverage: Make sure to add the page as part of the WB. Make sure you say who (including specific ngos) criticized the world bank and connect corruption point to world bank projects.

Neutral Content: It is mostly neutral with pluses and minuses, again just make sure to specify subjects in the criticism section.

Sources: Good use of diversified work cited.

Selkihel (talk) 03:06, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia Review
1. Gives a good background of the country of interest and its relation to the world bank. As a reader, I feel as though I have sufficient information about the topic to understand their relationship.Azacaria (talk) 20:04, 5 December 2019 (UTC)azcaria

2. There is embedding of sources to other wiki articles and other primary sources. I think you should include past projects for readers to gain a better understanding of what has already been done in that respective country.Azacaria (talk) 20:04, 5 December 2019 (UTC)azacaria

3. There is no categorization of the article, so remember to place it under world bank relations. There article is short, so just adding another 2 paragraphs, should be sufficient enough.Azacaria (talk) 20:04, 5 December 2019 (UTC) azacaria

4. There is a section about criticisms and you make an effort to make the sections as neutral as possible. Even though there is wording that infers a certain perspective, you provide sources that back it up, without including your own perspective. Azacaria (talk) 20:04, 5 December 2019 (UTC)azacaria

5. There are more than 6 references and they are all linked to credible articles. There is no reliance on just one source. Azacaria (talk) 20:04, 5 December 2019 (UTC)azacaria

Peer Review Jose C.
The topic of Kenya and the world bank are adequately described and the history of the country is shown in great detail. The lead paragraph of this article relates well into the following segments of the article and signposts what will be covered. There were relevant embedded links to other useful wikipedia pages in this article. The use of headings was well done. The headings concisely described what the main idea of the paragraphs was to be. The two paragraphs had well constructed ideas filled with useful facts that illustrated the interactions between Kenya and the WB. The page is clearly categorized into the WB section and is an original page made by the writer from what is shown on the edit history. The information that was presented in this article is not redundant as it is not shown in other areas of wikipedia. The article is neutral and uses neutral language throughout there does not seem to be an agenda in how the info is presented. I could not guess the perspective of the author from the way this article was written it comes off as merely informative. The sources used were reliable and showed variance upon further examining them and following the links to their respective sources. The authors article used 17 properly formatted sources from which he presented a well balanced article.Jose Cajero (talk) 02:09, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Peer Review
1: Lead Section: Great lead section. Clearly and succinctly describes the relationship between the nation of Kenya and The World Bank. Well cited and written.

2:Structure: The page is well structure, with clear sections, well formatted links, and succinct points.

3:Balance: The balance of the article is a big off. I think it is problematic that an article about the relationship spend roughly half the article exploring the criticism of the relationship. Perhaps more information should be dedicated to thing such as specific projects?

4.Neutrality: The page is very neutral and provides close to equal information to both sides of the debate about the World Bank's involvement in Kenya. Shalomjl (talk) 02:23, 6 December 2019 (UTC)