Talk:Panama and the World Bank

Untitled
Wiki Review - Gamaliel 1. good lead section needs more categorization and branching of topics for panama. 2. need more embedded links and a more direct flow of information will help 3. good focus on the WB but provide more Wb docs and info 4. language could see some revisions to be more neutral on the world bank and the mere numbers of what occurs. 5. need more diverse sources and need to be listed in reference page. P Gamaliel (talk) 04:27, 4 December 2019 (UTC)P Gamaliel

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): Ksm006.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 02:05, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

5 pillar review
1) I like the information in the lead section as a descriptor of panama's goals to eradicate poverty. I feel like this might be better under the goals section or as a specific policy section. I felt that the current project portion that was talking about votes should be included in this section. 2) Your organization is fine and i like the layout. For the listing of the specific agencies like IBRD and IFC if you could link those to their respective wiki pages that would be cool. Other than that formatting is fine. 3) I think the project did a good job talking about goals panama seeks to realize when using the IMF but i feel like a reference to specific projects or programs is missing. The page talked about addressing poverty and then about promoting growth through tourism but I didn't see any specific project or loan related to that or how a loan tied into that. 4) your tone and presentation of info is good. I didn't notice any bias in the wording and felt it was objective about Panama's current position in economic activity and things it seeks to fix without a political connotation. 5) your sources looked good and were official. I didn't notice any copying, which indicates this was all written in your own words summarizing info you had collected. Good Job!!Forsterucsd (talk) 01:19, 6 December 2019 (UTC)