User talk:DanielaERomero/sandbox

1. Great Job at overview section. This looks great in regards to slowly introducing topi in an objective manner. remember do not use quotes! Alcoalco (talk) 03:39, 4 December 2019 (UTC)alcoalco

2. This would look great if you added bold headings or underlining headers to separate each paragraph. This is definitely chronologically sound. Definitely include resolution details. Was it successful or not? Alcoalco (talk) 03:39, 4 December 2019 (UTC)alcoalco

3. definitely try to link to other Wikipedia articles. It does not try to convince the reader of a certain opinions. Jargin remains factual rather than opinionative. Alcoalco (talk) 03:39, 4 December 2019 (UTC)alcoalco

4. There are no negations or "some people say" sentences. I like how the author choose to write multiple paragraphs, as a reader, I felt like I was able to receive a lot of information without reading 20 pages. Alcoalco (talk) 03:39, 4 December 2019 (UTC)alcoalco

5. Reliable Sources: There are multiple sources, beyond the 6 required which is good! I don't see the actual reference section? I see the numbers referring to each citation, but I can't pull up the citations? Therefore can not determine the value of each source. Alcoalco (talk) 03:39, 4 December 2019 (UTC)alcoalco

Try to add some images! Or some charts! Alcoalco (talk) 03:39, 4 December 2019 (UTC)alcoalco

1.Your lead is a pretty good start but I would maybe add a sentence or two talking about the relationship between the IMF and El Salvador. 2.Overall, your information is good but could be structured better. Try to organize the information a little better to make your topics clear. 3.Your page covers a range of IMF intervention which is good. You might want to add some more detail on the conditions of the IMF loans. 4.Overall, your page uses relatively neutral langauge. The structure of the page though makes it seem a little that you are trying to make a point. 5.You have the required number of sources which is good. Your sources seem to provide reliable and accurate information as well.

Nelofgre (talk) 23:09, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

1. Lead section clearly explains history between the IMF and El Salvador! 2. Maybe adding some titles to headings of each paragraph might be little helpful. 3. Your article is balanced 4. Usage of neutral language is found in this article. 5. need to add source page! Soomin1996 (talk) 23:47, 5 December 2019 (UTC)Soomin1996

1.Your lead section is really informative and I think the information provided sets the scene. There is no filler and you have straight facts which is good. 2. Your structure could be a a bit more clear, but you just need to fix your headers and sectioning. 3. You should classify your article as IMF/World Bank, even though we know its IMF, it needs to be clearly put in that category. You could go a bit more in depth about the relationship between the IMF and El Salvador. 4. You manage to have a completely neutral tone, which I think makes the article better. You could avoid using words that shift the tone such as "brutal" to describe a civil war or "even more susceptible" when describing El Salvador. 5. It looks like you have citations but I don't see a list of citations anywhere. If you have as many citations as you have listed, then you should be fine. Nnmunoz (talk) 00:15, 6 December 2019 (UTC)nnmunoz