User talk:Derick996/Belarus and the World Bank

1. I'd be cautious in saying that World Bank lowers Belarus' economy growth forecast to 1.5 pct. The source may be biased against the international financial Institutions and there isn't any cited study that backs up the claim. 2. I think the discussion on Belarus' general economic condition is far too detailed in the lead paragraph. It should focus more specifically on the World Bank's involvement in Belarus more specifically. 3. The language is perfectly neutral and I don't think there are any things to fix in this category. It does not try to convince the reader of a particular stance on the World bank 4. Structure makes sense and citations are present. I would like to reiterate concern regarding that source about the lower economic growth. 5. It seems like it would be useful to describe why the public reception to the World Bank is mixed rather than simply stating that it is mixed. IlovetheIMF1998 (talk) 04:20, 4 December 2019 (UTC)Brian Japari IlovetheIMF1998

1. The only issues with you intro section are that there are some grammatical mistakes that need to be fixed when you re-read it, and that you should avoid subjective claims such as stating the reason for economic decline, when it could be caused by many different factors. 2. The structure of the article is pretty good, but you need to focus in your intro more on the World Bank in Belarus rather than having separate parts for the World Bank and Belarus. 3. The only balance issue with this article is that I think you could go into more detail of each individuals banks roles in Belarus. 4. The article does a good job of remaining neutral throughout, but you should avoid making subjective claims such as the one I mentioned before. 5. This article is very well sourced, and all of the citations are from strong independent organizations. Jcraighe (talk) 00:05, 5 December 2019 (UTC)Jcraighe