Talk:Nicaragua and the World Bank

Untitled

1.Give some more background of Nicaragua in comparison with other Latin american countries. Talk about their poltiical state as of right now and in the past and how that has effected them and their relationship with the World Bank. 2.Structure is good but perhaps give more headers and different sub topics of the projects rather than bunching them into one box so you can be more organized 3.Balanced use of content and sources but need a bit more background 4. Very objective and concise, I like that very much about your work . 5. Sources seem reliable but could use a few more. --BrunoAnteroBrasileiro (talk) 22:23, 5 December 2019 (UTC)BrunoAnteroBrasileiro

I would not call this article objective at all. It seems like it comes from the perspective of the World Bank, with no criticism. It just assumes more investment means less poverty, which has not proven to be the case it all. It just means more debt.--Sid rumpo (talk) 06:20, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

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): Nelofgre.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 01:36, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

5 pillar review

1) Lead section was easy to understand. I liked the history portion that you provided and i feel like it helps explain periods of turbulence between Nicaragua and the World Bank. I feel like the CFP portion you included in the projects section would be better included up in this section to provide the current situation and plan for Nicaragua.

2) Structure makes sense based off the headings. Could link more of the terms to other wikipedia pages that they correlate to. I would split up the different projects into their own respective groupings just so it creates a clear presentation of info.

3) Coverage felt slightly un-balanced. I think the history section was bigger in size than the projects section given that the project section was listing off two example projects. Possibly add more info to the project section would help fix that.

4) Language felt neutral and objective. Didn't seem like you were criticizing or showing bias at all. I think this is highlighted by your history part that talks about the revolution and political turmoil.

5) citations were correct and the sources looked good. I know from talking with a wiki editor that having too many primary authoritative sources can make a slightly skewed page. I would see if you can find some outside the world bank neutral sources to add. Forsterucsd (talk) 01:35, 6 December 2019 (UTC)