User talk:Evartsco/sandbox

The lead section is easy to understand and well balanced, but I think that It should be more focused on the topic of the article. Moreover, there is no source in this section. Thus, I think there should be added sources. Finally, I think that it would be appropriate to give data such as the voting power of the country in order to better understand its position in the bank.

The page’s structure is clear with a good use of the headings. Moreover, I appreciate the chronological criteria used to order it, I find it really appropriate.

All the sections are necessary to understand the topic and I think that there could be added more. Indeed, there is no section regarding the literature’s opinion about the topic. Moreover, there could be a more detailed explanation of the World Bank project in the country.

Language is very objective, and it is not possible to understand the author’s thought about the topic. Despite this, a lot of sentences are not sourced, and I think this should be fixed.

The sources used are very good. No one of them comes from Wikipedia, all comes from the World Bank group. There is no use of quotation and this makes the article easier to read.

Overall, to make the article more complete, I think that there could be added the point of view of both sustainer and critics of the World Bank interventions in the country and sources where there are not. Luca Policino (talk) 03:07, 5 December 2019 (UTC)Luca Policino