Talk:International Bank for Reconstruction and Development

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Good article International Bank for Reconstruction and Development has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
December 9, 2012 Good article nominee Listed
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Globalization (Rated GA-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Globalization, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Globalization on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Organizations (Rated GA-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Organizations. If you would like to participate please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Economics (Rated GA-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Economics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Economics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Finance (Rated GA-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Finance, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Finance on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Article Revision[edit]

This article is being discussed at the World Bank Group talk page. Please visit to participate in the discussion about the future of this article. --Brettbergeron 21:17, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Information on governance would be important here[edit]

This article would greatly benefit from information on governance and decision making by the IBRD. "Confessions of an Economic Hitman" makes the claim that the IBRD is a major factor in producing Third World poverty. John D. Croft (talk) 09:40, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Expansion[edit]

Article requires expansionOther dictionaries are better (talk) 16:12, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:International Bank for Reconstruction and Development/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Meclee (talk · contribs) 21:00, 28 November 2012 (UTC)


1.   Well-written:
       (a) the prose is clear and concise, respects copyright laws, and the spelling and grammar are correct; and
       (b) it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.[5]

I find the article to be clear and concise, grammatical, and in compliance.


2. Factually accurate and verifiable:

       (a) it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;
       (b) it provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines;[6] and
       (c) it contains no original research.

Article appears factually accurate and is definitely verifiable.

3. Broad in its coverage:

       (a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic;[7] and
       (b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).

Gives good coverage.

4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias, giving due weight to each.

   Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.[8]
   Illustrated, if possible, by images:[9]

Un-baised.

       (a) images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content; and
       (b) images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.[10]

No suitable images available.

Will await further comments/reviews for 10 days. Meclee (talk) 21:00, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Period passed without further comment. Meclee (talk) 02:01, 9 December 2012 (UTC)