User talk:Alcoalco/sandbox

Topic Undertsanding
1. You get across the topic well in your first paragraph and I can clearly understand what you are talking about. 2.Your subheadings are understandable and very clear. Good job. 3. You don't draw conclusions, which is good. You could give more examples if you need to fill space. 4. Could avoid use of certain words that make it seem not as objective, but stays mostly neutral throughout. 5. A lot of good sources that back up your information.

Nnmunoz (talk) 03:01, 4 December 2019 (UTC)nnmunoz

1. I don't see much of a lead, I see you start with background information, which is good. However, consider a one or two-sentence lead that summarizes the overall relationship between the WB and Guatemala. 2. Overall there seems to be good flow of information, and it is presented by each institution that took the project which makes sense. The organization is strong, there is also embedded links within the text. Good! 3. Your information sounds factual throughout, there is little to no evidence for you pushing a viewpoint to your reader. You also seem to have balanced coverage of the events you've listed. If any section needs more work, it would be the MIGA titled section. 4. The tone of your page is neutral, you do not side with the world bank or the country. You present factual information throughout. I do not see anywhere where you are objective, good! 5. Thre are 8 sources listed and they all seem to be of reputable sources like the World Bank and so forth. Each source is used once, so there is a balance of coverage between sources. I would suggest maybe to add more sources to the history between the state and the organization because although the information is standard, you should cite it.

Overall very good page, very straight forward and well written.m

Gonzalezmwalter (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:19, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

1.A lead is not really present in the page on Guatemala. You might want to add a sentence or two that provides a starting point for the reader in the relationship between the World Bank and Guatemala. 2.I like that you cover a multitude of subjects. However, you could go into more detail on some of these subjects. 3.I like the amount of topics you cover but also think that more detail and sentences should go into discussing the World Bank projects in Guatemala. 4.The language used in your paragraphs is neutral which is good. Your information seems to be backed by sources as well. 5.You have the required amount of sources which is good. Your sources seem to provide reliable and accurate information as well.

Nelofgre (talk) 23:00, 5 December 2019 (UTC)