User talk:Elitovar/sandbox

1. A lead section that is easy to understand - Looking at the lead by itself, do I feel satisfied that I know the importance of the topic?

There is currently no lead. Therefore on is necessary. I would advise putting the year the state entered agreements and the current status of agreements with the Fund.

- Looking at the lead again after reading the rest of the article, does the lead reflect the most important information?

No lead.

-Does the lead give more weight to certain parts of the article over others? Is anything missing? Is anything redundant? Does it NOT repeat information later in the article

No lead. There is an overview of the state, however, it looks like the economic history of the state versus IMF related.

2. A clear structure - Embedded links to other Wikipedia articles

There is embedded links in the draft. Links to the current projects of the World Bank to the Dominican Republic.

- Use of headings

Headings are used accordingly (Just switch them to OFFICIAL headings to create a table of contents). Organizes the article with a relationship with each organization. Should maybe separate the information into sub-headings to organize better.

--- Gonzalezmwalter (Walter Gonzalez)

- Each of 2 or 3 paragraphs makes a succinct independent point

Each paragraph does answer the chosen heading However, unless the professor instructed you, you should focus on a specific organization, either the IMF or World Bank. The information is a bit vague on each organization, so choosing one and focusing on it will make it better.

- Are the sections organized well, in a sensible order? Would they make more sense presented some other way (chronologically, for example)?

Makes sense

3. Balanced coverage - If live, page it categorized into IMF or WB

Not live.

- Information is lacking from Wikipedia in other articles - Is each section's length equal to its importance to the article's subject? Are there sections in the article that seem unnecessary? Is anything off-topic?

Coverage is balanced between both institutions. However, once again it would be better for you to focus on one.

- Does the article reflect all the perspectives represented in the published literature? Are any significant viewpoints left out?

The information provided is factual. Therefore there is not much bias.

- Does the article draw conclusions or try to convince the reader to accept one particular point of view? It should NOT

No, information is factual. Gives more direct facts. However, I beleive that once you focus on one specific organization, make sure that you aren't trying to convince the reader of a certain viewpoint.

4. Neutral content - Language is objective

Yes - Do you think you could guess the perspective of the author by reading the article? It should NOT

Not really, again pretty factual/vague so no room for a certain perspective

- Are there any words or phrases that don't feel neutral? For example, "the best idea," "most people," or negative associations, such as "While it's obvious that x, some insist that y."

No.

- Does the article make claims on behalf of unnamed groups or people? For example, "some people say..." These should be sourced

No. The article is written with mainly facts.

- Does the article focus too much on negative or positive information? Remember, neutral doesn't mean "the best positive light" or "the worst, most critical light." It means a clear reflection of various aspects of a topic. 5. Reliable sources - Six authoritative sources (international organizations, peer-review articles, scholarly organization, reputed newspapers)

Yes, sources seem to be credible.

- Properly cited in the reference section

There is some missing information, consider revising that.

- Are most statements in the article connected to a reliable source, such as textbooks and journal articles? Or do they rely on blogs or self-published authors?

All sources seem reliable.

- Are there a lot of statements attributed to one or two sources? If so, it may lead to an unbalanced article, or one that leans too heavily into a single point of view.

Sources are used once, so not repetitive.

- Are there any unsourced statements in the article, or statements that you can't find stated in the references? Just because there is a source listed, doesn't mean it's presented accurately!

Include more sources and facts of each organization. Maybe add more sources once you focus on a specific organization. Choose whichever one has more evidence so it is easier for you to write the project.

- Written in own words, no long quotes or copyright violation Extra – can the author link to other relevant articles? Add images?

It seems to all be written in own words, little quoting! Good! Do this when you expand on a certain organization

SUMMARY: Choose one specific organization. Since you choose both, the information although relevant is too vague. You are supposed to choose either IMF or World Bank, not more.

Gonzalezmwalter (talk)