Talk:Malaysia and the World Bank

Lead Section that is Easy to Understand
The Lead section is very well done. It gives an overview of the article without dipping into the content JohnnelRawson (talk) 01:02, 6 December 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by JohnnelRawson (talk • contribs) 00:50, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Kahlil Ram (talk) 04:25, 6 December 2019 (UTC)Kahlil Ram

1. The lead section provided a good overview on the relationship between the World Bank and Malaysia. Perhaps briefly mentioning some of the content found in the headers would be good. It does not repeat some information found later in the article. The lead does not give undue weight to anything.

2. Yes, there are several embedded links to other Wikipedia articles, though perhaps one for the last header would be good somewhere. The use of headings was good and made sense. The sections are organized well.

3. The page is categorized for the World Bank. I am not entirely sure what this part of the question is asking, but I believe all the content here is original and unique. Nothing is off topic and the headers seem appropriate. There do not appear to be any significant views left out as the tone is neutral and the content is purely informational. No, this article does not seem to be trying to push a particular point of view.

4. Yes, the language is objective and does not make any unnecessary value statements. I do not think I could guess the author's perspective. I did not read any sentences that felt non-neutral. There are no cases where the author wrote about people making a claim without citing it. The article seems to be objective and does not sway in either a critical or laudatory direction.

5. Yes, all the sources are credible and cited correctly. Most of the citations are from the World Bank. The article does lean heavily on the World Bank as a source, but this seems okay given the author is writing about their projects. I did not find any unsourced references. There were no long quotes and everything seemed to be written in the author's own words. Perhaps some pictures would be helpful, but they are not necessary.

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): Evartsco.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 00:26, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

A clear structure
Appropriate use of headings and each section has its own purpose. JohnnelRawson (talk) 00:57, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Balanced Coverage
All sections have good levels of coverage. The "new instruments" and "poverty" section can be fleshed out a bit or combined under a new section: "recent improvements"? JohnnelRawson (talk) 01:01, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Neutral content
The article is written in a professional tone. No inappropriate tones. JohnnelRawson (talk) 01:01, 6 December 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by JohnnelRawson (talk • contribs) 01:00, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Reliable Sources
Sources are put in the appropriate spots and provide credible evidence for article. JohnnelRawson (talk) 01:06, 6 December 2019 (UTC)