Talk:Mali and the World Bank

Untitled
It has quite a few references but I think several are duplicates, if you are using same source twice I think you can use the same number. It has a strong objective tone, the only part I would maybe look at is where you discuss The World Bank wanting to privatize the industry and withholding cash, using the word 'influence' can seem a bit negative towards the WB. It's balanced in terms of coverage of topics, and the initial paragraph seems good to me as an encylopedic entry for Wikipedia. Some more links to other Wiki articles would be good, maybe images for the resource production paragraph? The only section that seems missing to me is a discussion of Mali's history with WB beyond the current projects (might be that these are the only projects in their history, in which case ignore this comment). It would also be useful to get an understanding of WB evaluations of Mali and their plans for the future. Knagrech (talk) 02:03, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

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): Selkihel. Peer reviewers: Knagrech.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 00:27, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia Review
1. Lead gives sufficient information about the country. I feel like I know the relation between Mali and the World Bank. Azacaria (talk) 00:01, 6 December 2019 (UTC)azcaria

2. There are embedded links to other wiki articles and other sources are inserted where needed. I like the split between the two project areas and the subparts of each project.Azacaria (talk) 00:01, 6 December 2019 (UTC)azacaria

3. The page is placed in its respective category. Perhaps including a section about the relation Mali has with the other branches of the world bank would be helpful, since you name them in this introduction.Azacaria (talk) 00:01, 6 December 2019 (UTC)azacaria

4. There is a neutral viewpoint of the information being provided, especially for the explanation of the projects. Azacaria (talk) 00:01, 6 December 2019 (UTC)azacaria

5. There are more than six credible sources, which gives a well rounded approach to your topic.Azacaria (talk) 00:01, 6 December 2019 (UTC)azacaria

I also would recommend more visuals, specifically for the project section.Azacaria (talk) 00:01, 6 December 2019 (UTC)azacaria

Kahlil Ram (talk) 03:33, 6 December 2019 (UTC)Kahlil Ram 1. Yes, I feel the lead gives a good amount of information since it talks about Mali and its past dealings with the World Bank. The lead definitely holds the most important information since it is giving the main overview of the WB and Mali. Perhaps adding a sentence about good governance and the environment would help, although the latter was already briefly mentioned in the lead.

2. Yes, there are plenty of links to other Wikipedia articles. The use of headings made sense and introduced new topics. All the paragraphs talked about a unique point that related Mali and the World Bank. The headers make sense ordered as they are. They are merely talking about the various roles the World Bank has played in Mali.

3. Yes, it is titled Mali and the World Bank. I'm not sure exactly what this part of the question is asking, but this article seems to be unique in the knowledge it brings to Wikipedia. Nothing is off topic and the headers make sense. It seems to me that the length is appropriate. This article is purely just informational rather than taking a standpoint on a contentious issue. As a result I do not believe there are any significant view points left out. The language is very neutral and informational, just as it should be. It is not trying to convince anyone of anything.

4. The language is objective and there are no value statements made. There does not seem to be a perspective. There are no value statements being made. No, virtually everything has a source and there are no unsourced claims. As far as I am able to tell, this article is completely neutral. No statements about something being good or bad has been made.

5. Yes, there are 28 citations from a variety of scholarly sources. Everything has been cited to perfection. Virtually every single statement made is connected to a reliable source. The same source gets cited several times, though I do not see this as a negative given that no value judgement is being made and it is purely informational. I found everything in the references. There are no long quotes and everything was written in the author's own words.

Peer Review
1. The lead section relays all the important factors between Mali and the World Bank, and also added relevant historical information that will be discussed later on.

2. The structure is very clear and concise. Each heading lets me know what the paragraph is about and does not go off topic.

3. Coverage could be improved by expanding more on each WB project.

4. Content is relatively neutral but could add alternative perspectives to show other significant viewpoints or controversies found by scholars.

5. Each citation is from a reliable source in the form of scholarly articles, or directly from the world bank website. I detect no plagiarism.

Great job overall!

Amara Sengamphan (talk) 07:13, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Feedback
1) Lead Section: This article has a strong lead which introduces the topic and stresses its importance. The lead is not missing any important information. The sentence about climate may is unnecessary for the lead. 2) Structure: The article has a clear and organised structure. The article should include embedded links 3) Balanced Coverage: The section paragraph lengths are appropriate and the paragraphs reflect the relevant information. 4) Neutrality: The language in the article is neutral. I could not guess the views of the authors 5) Sources: The article uses several well sourced and reliable sources.JSilver97 (talk) 01:07, 10 December 2019 (UTC)