User talk:Azacaria/sandbox

Lead Section is good, but maybe instead of describing its location, using an image of a map would be more effective? Might also be useful to have some background on how long they have been with the WB in the background itself, and a brief overview of any active or past projects. Since it currently focuses more on Botswana's exports and economy, I think it doesn't address the WB relationship in the start. Structurally, I feel like the divisions are quite good in succinctly making a point in each paragraph, and the 'Relation with WB' section is particularly strong. I'm not sure if Country Partnership Framework deserves its own heading though - maybe a subheader under Relation with WB? Also you need a References header at the bottom. The coverage here is focusing a lot on Relation with WB (I guess this is fine since its the whole point of the article), but just in terms of word count, projects and background get much less detail than relation with WB. Adding more info to projects would be good, and some images/charts may give them more info easily. Overall its very strong in terms of objective/encyclopedic tone. There's only a couple words I would change - when it says 'most of their success is due to diamonds' maybe change the word success? Perhaps 'most of their economic growth is due to diamonds'? Also the part where it is a 'developmental success story', it may be true but it sounds too positive to be neutral to me. Maybe something like 'have seen strong development in humanitarian, social, and economic areas'? Aside from this, the article is good in tone and neutrality. You have a few duplicate sources, you can reuse numbers. See 5,6 ,8 and 9,10. It's quite reliant on WB sources but I think that's probably fine given the focus of the article. A few images would be nice to break up the text as you read, maybe a map in the background section. It does need the Wiki links to other articles but that's easy enough to do. For the most part it looks quite good to me and reads a lot like a real Wiki article. There's some development needed for a couple sections, and some 'review' stuff (images, links), but aside from that its definitely in a good place. Knagrech (talk) 17:43, 5 December 2019 (UTC)