Talk:Grenada and the International Monetary Fund

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 1 October 2019 and 14 December 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): KameRYU20. Peer reviewers: Evartsco.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 21:59, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Peer Review

Lead evaluation The lead gives a very detailed introduction to Grenada itself. I would consider establishing the nature of the country with the IMF early on so the reader has an idea of what the Wikipedia article will be about. Briefly discuss the history, overview and nature to accomplish this!

Content evaluation The content captures the length of time that Grenada has been apart of the IMF, furthermore, it includes a comprehensive history of lending table with loan details. The section that includes the economic overview of Grenada helps give the reader an understanding of the nature of IMF loans. Consider detailing what the loans were used for!

The content reflects IMF standing from 1975-2019 so I believe it to be current.

Tone and balance evaluation The tone and balance of the article remains very neutral. Facts are presented in a way that allows the author to come to their own conclusions about the topic. Article IV is perhaps the only section that might invoke bias, but this is based a consultation carried out by the IMF itself.

Sources and references evaluation The sources are predominantly from the IMF, OEC and other academic sources. The sources are both current and reflect available literature on the subject. The only time Wikipedia is used as a source is to verify geographic data.

Images and media evaluation Given the articles's length, I find it uses images well and laid out in a way that makes sense to the reader.

New Article Evaluation The article is new and meet's Wikipedia's notability requirements. It is supported by more than 3 secondary reliable sources and accurately represents the data there within. Furthermore, it follows the pattern of other [Country and IMF/World Bank] articles.

Overall evaluation Overall the article is very well constructed and reflects good use of sources, visual aids, and financial data to capture the extent and nature of the Grenada-IMF relationship. Great work!

Evartsco (talk) 23:21, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Peer Review

Lead Section - The lead section may serve the page if its content was more similar to that of the second section. It ought to provide a brief overview of what will follow, focusing more on the relations. Rearranging or summarizing some of the information in other sections and placing it toward the beginning may achieve this.

Structure - The page provides a table informative of the lending history and information regarding recent developments, such as the 2019 Article IV Consultation, but information regarding much of its history (1975-2000s) is scarce. More information regarding the bulk of the historical relationship is needed.

Balance of Coverage - The article provides authoritative interpretations of the economic history and conditions primarily from the IMF. It would be a good counterbalance if the page included perspectives critical or in disagreement with those presented by the IMF.

Content Neutrality - The article doesn’t show any clear bias or agenda. The information provided includes positive and negative developments, lacking language that attacks or pins blame on any one entity or person.

Source Reliability - The article uses reputable sources (IMF, OEC) and exploits them effectively to provide a good general understanding of the topic.

Ericcabaniss (talk) 01:11, 6 December 2019 (UTC)Ericcabaniss

Peer rReview Feedback

1: Lead: The lead is very well written, that being said, I think it may be a better introduction to a page on the nation of Grenada, not the page on the nation's relationship with the IMF. Try to expand on the relationship in the lead section.

2: Structure: Page needs to be properly categorized. Expand on the section examining the relationship between the two stakeholders. This area is disproportionately small considering its importance.

4: Content: The tone of the article is neutral, fact are well presented. As previously pointed out, the article IV section needs work.

5: Sources: The article is lacking in reliable sources. Simple citing another Wikipedia page may not be acceptable. Shalomjl (talk) 02:09, 6 December 2019 (UTC)