Talk:Democratic Republic of the Congo and the International Monetary Fund

1a. I like that you tried to encompass the standing of the DRC in your introduction, it really helps the reader get a grasp on what the DRC's role within the IMF really is. ErikaInfanzon (talk) 01:47, 6 December 2018 (UTC)ErikaInfanzon 1b. Tying back the intro to the rest of your article, I noticed that it does not seem very related to the body, maybe elaborating on the role of the DRC, and how the relationship is significant. ErikaInfanzon (talk) 01:47, 6 December 2018 (UTC)ErikaInfanzon 1c.I like that you introduce the DRC's influence in IMF, it demonstrates the DRC's commitment to the institution. ErikaInfanzon (talk) 01:47, 6 December 2018 (UTC)ErikaInfanzon

A clear structure

2a. I like the articles, but I am not familiar with some key terms, like pro-poor, creating links to definitions would help the reader understand what you are saying! ErikaInfanzon (talk) 01:58, 6 December 2018 (UTC)ErikaInfanzon 2b. Good use of headings, the sub-topics illustrate the uniqueness of the DRC-IMF relations.ErikaInfanzon (talk) 01:58, 6 December 2018 (UTC)ErikaInfanzon 2c. You paragraphs are very easy to read, and give good background on the country's economy. ErikaInfanzon (talk) 01:58, 6 December 2018 (UTC)ErikaInfanzon 2d. The organization of your article is cohesive, and conveys informations in clear, and ordered way. ErikaInfanzon (talk) 01:58, 6 December 2018 (UTC)ErikaInfanzon

Balanced Coverage

3a. Since your article is not live yet you are good! Reminder: Don't forget to categorize in either WB or IMF, code on syllabus.ErikaInfanzon (talk) 02:06, 6 December 2018 (UTC)ErikaInfanzon 3b.Linking your article to your countries page on Wikipedia, or the IMF might get you more views :). ErikaInfanzon (talk) 02:06, 6 December 2018 (UTC)ErikaInfanzon 3c. Cited information looks good! I like how you synthesized, and drew conclusions on the relationship of the DRC and IMF over the years, it gives the reader more intuition on the topic. ErikaInfanzon (talk) 02:06, 6 December 2018 (UTC)ErikaInfanzon 3d. Very good analysis, I like that you maintain a neutral stand on the information you convey to the reader.ErikaInfanzon (talk) 02:06, 6 December 2018 (UTC)ErikaInfanzon

Neutral Language

4a. Good use of objectivity, no sentences seem biased or politically charged.ErikaInfanzon (talk) 03:59, 6 December 2018 (UTC)ErikaInfanzon 4b. Content seems neutral, however, something I might suggest(and even do myself) is to write cronollogically the events, and general perspectives! ErikaInfanzon (talk) 03:59, 6 December 2018 (UTC)ErikaInfanzon 4c. Didn't find any negative associations, would recommend that you look over you article and double check. ErikaInfanzon (talk) 03:59, 6 December 2018 (UTC)ErikaInfanzon 4d. In your article try to use concise language. Avoid using words like some, a little, a lot, etc., If you can, use quantitative data. ErikaInfanzon (talk) 03:59, 6 December 2018 (UTC)ErikaInfanzon 4e. Good synthesis of information, would like to know more about the benefits of these programs for the DRC.ErikaInfanzon (talk) 03:59, 6 December 2018 (UTC)ErikaInfanzon

Reliable Sources

5a. Good amount of sources, reliable and neutral international organizations. ErikaInfanzon (talk) 04:09, 6 December 2018 (UTC)ErikaInfanzon

5b. Most citations have red flags due to missing date that you accessed information. ErikaInfanzon (talk) 04:09, 6 December 2018 (UTC)ErikaInfanzon 5c. In the "Early 2000's" section of your article you make significant claims but do not cite the source of the information. This could be bad.ErikaInfanzon (talk) 04:09, 6 December 2018 (UTC)Erika Infanzon 5d.Consider finding secondary articles to help increase the validation of the first sources claim. Could prove to be more effective in strengthening your article. ErikaInfanzon (talk) 04:09, 6 December 2018 (UTC)ErikaInfanzon 5e. Good paraphrasing, no quotes. ErikaInfanzon (talk) 04:09, 6 December 2018 (UTC)ErikaInfanzon