User talk:Kenzasabri/sandbox

1. The lead is missing in the draft. 2. Not proper use of headings, refer to the appropriate training modules to see how to improve, however, headings fully represent the content. Each paragraph makes a succinct and independent point. There are no embedded Wikipedia links in this draft. 3. There are no conclusions in the draft, however, some of the paragraphs are not finished yet. 4. The draft is written in a neutral tone but again, some paragraphs are not finished yet. 5. There is only one single source in this draft so far. The addition of other sources will make the article more versatile and provide views from different perspectives. There are no pictures in this draft but the addition of some recommended. 70.95.171.245 (talk) 05:59, 5 December 2019 (UTC)Antonhawk13

1. The lead section is good, but it doesn’t give the precedent needed to truly present this article. It doesn’t delve too much into what the IMF is as an organization which would really help in clarifying the subject at hand. 2. It does not have the clearest of structures. It could use the implementation of other wikipedia embedded links such as a link to the IMF which could help with the clarity of the article. It would help to add more information to the “Goals” section as that would help clarify the organization. 3. Unfortunately, it lacks balanced coverage as some sections have significantly more than others. Nothing seems off topic rather the article seems to be missing information to fill in gaps of coverage. There’s not much in the article pertaining to published literature other than that of the one IMF source provided. Article remains pretty neutral just presenting the facts. 4. The language is very objective. I can make an assumption of what the author thinks regarding the topic but for the most part it is a neutral article, objectively written. No biased language. 5. There isn’t 6 sources, so the article is unbalanced as it relies on the 1 source from the IMF. The one source is reliable as the IMF only draws data and claims from reliable sources, but the article could use more empirical sources. 6. Extra: Maybe implement a photo, chart, or table? Dtahbaz (talk) 02:55, 6 December 2019 (UTC)Dtahbaz