User talk:Jcraighe/sandbox

1. I think the sources are fine. They seem to be academically credible and directly relevant to the topic. 2. I'd probably be more prudent in choosing a different source when attributing World Bank efforts to development other than World Bank data. Perhaps, a research paper or even a World Bank paper that specifies the mechanisms through which development was achieved. 3. Language is neutral. Well suited for a wikipedia page. 4. Structure makes sense. If I had to quibble, I suggest changing the success heading to reception to minimize perception of bias. 5. In the final version, I assume there will be a lead paragraph that describes the rest of the page.

IlovetheIMF1998 (talk) 05:28, 4 December 2019 (UTC)IlovetheIMF1998 Brian Japari

First, the article does well on giving background information between the country and the World Bank on introducing the topic. 1. I do like the leading/introduction part of this article they are well structured, supported with credible/neutral sources, and are clear. You could possibly expand on some more details thought to give more background. 2. The article is organized in a sensible order with a good title and sub-headings to differentiate sections/information. Good use of embedded links and sources as well. 3. I do not find anything to be off-topic, but I do believe some sections could be given more detail to show more information or evidence to the topic at hand. I believe maybe a counterargument from an opposition could be given to give a significant point of view as well. 4. The language is objective. I do find this article to be neutral and without persuasion or a bias to it. 5. I found this article to make good use of credible and neutral sources. No long quotes or copyright violations that I noticed.

The author could possibly add necessary images if able to.

Derick996 (talk) 02:25, 6 December 2019 (UTC)Derick996 (Derick Tavares)