Talk:India and the World Bank

Untitled

1. I can tell the importance of the topic. The lead does reflect the most important topic. 2. There is clear structure and there is definitely a use of headings with paragraphs with independent points. 3. It is categorized into the world bank. There is a lot of information and it is covered thoroughly 4. The content does feel neutral for the most part. 5. You have used a lot of sources, but when you put the little boxes with the numbers for when you cite a sentence or something you should be consistent with when you put that before or after a period.

03:49, 6 December 2018 (UTC)Dylan Erickson

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): Forsterucsd.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 22:56, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Edits

1. The lead section has good background information on India’s history with the Bank. The lead section could use a portion that says something about the importance of education and infrastructure, as is addressed in depth late in the page. 2. The page has a clear structure, though the portion on India’s economy seems to relate more toward the IMF than the World Bank. The country partnership section could be put under a different header. 3. Each section is a good length. The portion on the Economy of India seems to be off topic as I cannot see how what is said is related to the World Bank. I can infer why, but it needs to be stated. This portion related more to the IMF. 4. Content is all neutral and objective. Good job at saying where the info is coming from, i.e. according to the imf, etc 5. Sources 1, 3 and 7 are missing information. Date values need to be checked on all sources. All sources are reliable sources. Last sentence of the page is not cited.

Isabellakdesilva (talk) 16:48, 6 December 2018 (UTC)isabellakdesilva

A Lead Section that is easy to understand

Good summary it is easy to understand and is not redundant with the article

The Lead Section gives a lot of information about the relationship between India and the World Bank (the length and strength of bond), and it gives a brief look to the history and current state of the relationship. This is well informed and it establishes the importance of the article by fleshing out the title.JohnnelRawson (talk) 19:15, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

A Clear Structure

Good use of headings and good independent concise points. However according to the guide we need to embed other wikipedia articles i believe. The separation of the article through headings is great. Could use possible expansion on the "Economy" section though.JohnnelRawson (talk) 00:40, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Balanced Coverage

Neutral wording and each section appears to cover the information sufficiently. Each section is covered well, only expand upon "Economy" partJohnnelRawson (talk) 00:41, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Neutral Wording

All information seems to be neutral and non opinionated. The wording is neutral. No biased viewpoints.JohnnelRawson (talk) 00:44, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Reliable Sources

All sources seem to be reliable.Although the SSA section and Framework section do not have any citations in the information provided.

Chg015 (talk) 03:45, 7 December 2018 (UTC)chg015 All sources used seem reliable.JohnnelRawson (talk) 00:45, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

review

-the lead is good and informative. you can maybe make it clear from the beginning what the world bank's general goal has been in India. -the sections are well organized. I like that you identified individual projects that they have done together. -You could add more information from the world bank and India's past relationship. Other than that it looks good -You are neutral and straight to the point. you are not promoting an ideas but simply giving readers a summary of your research. I like it. -Maybe go back and try to recite the references so that they aren't red. your sources seem reliable. great job!! Fabiolamicheles (talk) 14:10, 7 December 2018 (UTC)fabiolamicheles