User talk:Jsihite/sandbox

1. Intro seems to be biased infavor of IMF. 2. I would watch words like “enjoyed” “friendly” with regards to the IMF to ramen neutral. 3. Article flows and has points that make sense. 4. Talk more about IMF intervention within the country perhaps, within its own sections not just in the asian crisis topic. 5. Last two sources, I’m not sure if they are reliable sources Angelavpoli144 (talk) 02:34, 6 December 2018 (UTC)Angelavpoli144

A lead section that is easy to understand
1a. The lead is very nicely articulated, I liked that it was easy to follow and gave a broader perspective on the realtions between Indonesia and the IMF. ErikaInfanzon (talk) 06:48, 6 December 2018 (UTC)ErikaInfanzon 1b. The lead transistions well into the body of the article and gives the article a good structure.ErikaInfanzon (talk) 06:48, 6 December 2018 (UTC)ErikaInfanzon 1c. The intro capture most of the important information. I think it might be nice to have more context on why the IMF began intervening in the Indonesian economy.Otherwise very good. ErikaInfanzon (talk) 06:48, 6 December 2018 (UTC)ErikaInfanzon 1d.Intro is a good Segway into why the IMF-Indonesian relations turned out the way they did. ErikaInfanzon (talk) 06:48, 6 December 2018 (UTC)ErikaInfanzon

A clear structure
2a. Overall good content, would be nice to have important terms linked to other wiki pages in order to facilitate the readers understanding. ErikaInfanzon (talk) 06:53, 6 December 2018 (UTC)ErikaInfanzon 2b. Nice chronological use of headings. I like this because it does not emphasize a single event, rather the occurance of multiple events over time. ErikaInfanzon (talk) 06:53, 6 December 2018 (UTC)ErikaInfanzon 2c. I like that the structure of the paragraphs convey clear ideas and stay on topic. ErikaInfanzon (talk) 06:53, 6 December 2018 (UTC)ErikaInfanzon 2d. Yes! Your articles has a nice flow that illustrates the bigger picture of Indonesian actions and results. ErikaInfanzon (talk) 06:53, 6 December 2018 (UTC)ErikaInfanzon

Balance Coverage
3a. It would be smart to categorize your article to IMF on Wikipedia, code on syllabus. ErikaInfanzon (talk) 07:10, 6 December 2018 (UTC)ErikaInfanzon

3b. It would be cool if you linked your article to the IMF wiki page or your countries wiki page, you might get more views. ErikaInfanzon (talk) 07:10, 6 December 2018 (UTC)ErikaInfanzon

3c. Great article overall, each section is relevant to your topic! ErikaInfanzon (talk) 07:10, 6 December 2018 (UTC)ErikaInfanzon 3d. I did notice your article is more qualitative than quantitative, could you use more quantitave data to make your article stronger? Also, you have sentences, and claims that are not cited how are these claims related to your sources? ErikaInfanzon (talk) 07:10, 6 December 2018 (UTC)ErikaInfanzon 3e. I like that you stayed consistent and neutral throughout your article, and very informative unbiased perspective. ErikaInfanzon (talk) 07:10, 6 December 2018 (UTC)ErikaInfanzon

Neutral Content
4a. I like that you tried to be as objective as possible in your article, again citations would help strengthen your claims! ErikaInfanzon (talk) 07:20, 6 December 2018 (UTC)ErikaInfanzon 4b. No obvious perspective that I picked up on. However, I am still a little unclear on what triggered IMF intervention. ErikaInfanzon (talk) 07:20, 6 December 2018 (UTC)ErikaInfanzon 4c. I like that you identified and attributed factors of bias that affected overall outcome of past IMF-Indonesian relations. ErikaInfanzon (talk) 07:20, 6 December 2018 (UTC)ErikaInfanzon

4d. Again, have precaution when making these claims, they need to be sourced AND cited! ErikaInfanzon (talk) 07:20, 6 December 2018 (UTC)ErikaInfanzon 4e. Something to think about when finalizing your article might be whether you are encompassing both perspectives good and bad that reflect your case in the most fact based way. ErikaInfanzon (talk) 07:20, 6 December 2018 (UTC)ErikaInfanzon

Reliable Sources
5a. Good start on you citations! I like that you have found credible sources that create a stronger article. ErikaInfanzon (talk) 07:28, 6 December 2018 (UTC)ErikaInfanzon 5b. Nice formatting of citations, no complaints here...>.< ErikaInfanzon (talk) 07:28, 6 December 2018 (UTC)ErikaInfanzon 5c. I think you are missing some part of your article that need citations. ErikaInfanzon (talk) 07:28, 6 December 2018 (UTC)ErikaInfanzon 5d. Also, good job finding multiple different sources. The more variety the better! ErikaInfanzon (talk) 07:28, 6 December 2018 (UTC)ErikaInfanzon 5e. Again, some statements are missing citations. ErikaInfanzon (talk) 07:28, 6 December 2018 (UTC)ErikaInfanzon 5e. All good so far, creating links is the funnest part! ^~^

A Lead Section that is easy to understand
I do feel like I know the importance of the topic. However, it does seem like you have some not so neutral phrasing in your intro. However the information is not repeated elsewhere in the article.

A Clear Structure
Good use of headings and great structure. However I dont see the use of any other wikipedia articles.

Balanced Coverage
Maybe the inclusion of some of the programs you mentioned in your policy memo would be good to place in this article for a more complete summation of IMF and Indonesia agreements.

== Neutral Content = = As mentioned previously, it seems that you have some not so neutral language in regards to the IMF. Perhaps rephrasing would help it appear more neutral.

Reliable Sources
I dont know if your last two sources from the bloomberg articles are reliable sources. Furthermore, I believe we are required to use other wikipedia articles in our sources

Chg015 (talk) 03:30, 7 December 2018 (UTC)Chg015