Jjvargas7
| This user is a student editor in University_of_California_-_San_Diego/Comparative_Political_Economy_-_Modern_Capitalism_(Fall) . |
Welcome edit
Welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you enjoy the encyclopedia and want to stay. As a first step, you may wish to read the Introduction.
If you have any questions, feel free to ask me at my talk page – I'm happy to help. Or, you can ask your question at the New contributors' help page.
Here are some more resources to help you as you explore and contribute to the world's largest encyclopedia...
Finding your way around:
|
Need help?
|
|
How you can help:
|
|
Additional tips...
|
Notes edit
Hi! I wanted to leave my notes on Wikipedia so it'd be easier to go back and forth between them. My main notes are this:
- The article needs a lead paragraph that explains the topic of the article. I think that the overview was meant to do this so I turned it into one, but it does need to fit the guidelines at MOS:LEAD. It's a little unclear about whether or not this discusses a branch of the WBG in Honduras or its effect on Honduras.
- The article needs sources that are independent of Honduras (ie, anything released by the government), the WBG, and anyone that is partnered with these groups. So far everything is primary and while that can back up basic details, it cannot establish notability - and you need to show where this topic is independently notable outside of the main parent article on the WBG or any similar articles, like Economy of Honduras. Basically, you need to show where this would need its own article rather than a subsection in either article.
- Be careful about making your own original research and POV type writing. This can be easy to miss when you first start editing - I did the same thing when I made my first edits. Avoid POV statements like "staggering" and when making claims, make sure that it's backed up with a reliable source that explicitly makes that claim.
- When doing captions for pictures, keep the statements short - typically about 4-8 words. If a statement gets too long it most likely needs to be in the article itself.
- Be careful of bias. I'll elaborate on this below.
Now all of that said, I do think that this likely warrants an article. A quick search brings up stuff like this where the WB has been criticized for its investments - and it's apparently not a new criticism. Be careful to avoid only writing on one side of the matter - your article does mention some criticism but it's fairly light in comparison to positive statements about their work. Be especially careful of sentences like this one:
- The implementation of new technologies, an estimated 5,500 new rural housing units, and arrangement of 70 business plans are set to directly serve local communities in advancing a vibrant economy backed by a strong infrastructure and thriving agricultural competition
The issue with this sentence is that it could be seen as a bit of cheerleading for the WB. I do think that you have a solid start here - you just need to add more to the page about its controversies, clean up the POV statements, add independent reliable sourcing, and work on the lead. I know that sounds like a lot, but feel free to reach out if you need any help! Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 08:42, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
- I'll actually go and help with the lead - I know that this is a lot to do before the end of class. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 08:48, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
- I've done the lead, so I'd focus on the sourcing and editing for the time being. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 08:53, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
As far as the lead paragraph, I do like and definitely agree with the changes. I do not agree exactly with part of your second point, however, because inherently the presence of the WBG within a specific country is worthy in itself of having a dedicated page due to the political and economic implications that are exclusive to the region itself. The policies within the WB and Honduras are narrowly tailored to meet specific demands within the nation, therefore I believe that is inherently implied in the introductory paragraph that explicitly makes mention of the context under which the World Bank is critically needed. I am not exactly sure how I would implement that without regurgitating a point that does not exactly contribute to the overall flow and purpose of the article. Anyone who would search or come across the page would likely have done so with some previous knowledge/exposure/familiarity as to what the WB is generally responsible for since the operation of the institution within the country is a topic that caters to interests in purely the institutional/global significance of the WBG's presence in it's affairs. I went ahead and added the last sentence to the lead paragraph that you see now. I believe this is the only way I can succinctly contribute an idea that mentions the importance of why this article is worthy of standing on its own without going too far in depth, while keeping it simple, direct, and concise.
As far as neutrality, if I included points centered on the negative implications of each individual entity of the World Bank operating in Honduras then that would provide too much leverage for that point of view given that the negative aspects of it as I have researched have been based primarily on speculations and predictions regarding the outlook of the institution within the nation instead of citations of concrete events or examples that have shown the consistent negative effects of the WB in the country over a course of a few years. The page is meant to discuss the potential and meaning of the WB's operations within the country, not so much meant to discuss the broad political themes surrounding the operation of institution (WB) within the country. I am not sure how I would implement that type of advice given these facts.
What I have done is explicitly mention "potential" as the primary basis upon which the programs are being implemented. I do so following discussion of a potential type of drawback/setback the WB may face in its operations within the subheadings in "Strategic Partnership". I feel that through this discussion I weigh pros and cons (potential ones) of any plans/potential intervention by the institution.
Jjvargas7 (talk) 10:29, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
- Hi! The thing with establishing notability is that most things do not inherit notability from being associated with or being a branch off of something that is notable, not even in this case. You always need to show that the content merits its own article by showing where the topic has received its own coverage independent of the main topic areas. In other words, in this situation showing notability will establish that this would merit its own article rather than reducing it to a subsection in the main article for Honduras's economy or in the main article for the WB. The need of the nation doesn't give the article more notability as far as Wikipedia looks at things, unfortunately - there have been a lot of articles that should have topics that ended up getting merged into other articles because notability wasn't established.
- Now as far as the negative coverage goes, this sort of thing does need to be in the article because while the WB is working in the long term, the issues that are getting brought up in the here and now with how they operate can be pretty major and impact how things unfold. It doesn't have to be insanely long, but it should be mentioned because otherwise the article is really only looking at the potential positives that the organization could do, which is how it can end up appearing biased.
- As far as the page's intent goes, at some point the political aspects of the WB in Honduras are going to be mentioned because anything that supplies funding to a country is going to get involved with politics. It's the nature of the beast, so to speak, and we can't talk about the potential and intent of the WB without discussing how its current actions are being seen by Hondurans and others, as well as the current effect it's having on the country.
- I'm not sure about the sentence you added to the lead, as it does come across as a little overly positive. I'm going to rephrase it somewhat and keep some of the wording, but make it a little more neutral. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 14:52, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
- I rewrote the sentence to fit Wikipedia's MoS guidelines a little more. Let me know what you think. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 15:06, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
- I also expanded the section about the IFC to include the criticism about the Dinant and Ficohsa stuff to show what I what I was mentioning above. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 15:50, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
- I weighed in with one of my coworkers and he had the following advice:
- The World Bank's actions in Honduras have been very controversial, so controversy should be in the article and leaving it out would be problematic.
- He also stated that the article needs primarily independent third party sources because the World Bank as a whole has had a long history of controversy, so sourcing is needed to back up any claims by the World Bank.
- We need to be careful to exclude marketing hype and actually highlighted the sentence I'd re-written, so I've removed the sentence and rewrote the lead. I think that the marketing hype may be a byproduct of using primary sources, which can happen - most primary sources are written to discuss the organization or person writing the content in a fairly positive light in most situations. He warned about the tone making the content one sided.
- He also cautioned against assuming that the reader will be fairly knowledgeable about the World Bank before they come across this article, so we need to make sure that there is some information about the World Bank. It doesn't need to be extensive but there should be some explanation. He also wanted me to point you towards Help:Editing since that is a little more succinct than the other portion I linked to.
- I'm still willing to help out, so let me know if you need anything. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 16:29, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
Peer Review edit
This is probably the most comprehensive article of other. You have good citations and reliable references. For the most part, all of your content is on point and relevant to the title. I did not find ay plagiarism, but I would check for yourself given the amount of content. — Preceding unsigned comment added by T7jackso (talk • contribs) 06:55, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for all of the great feedback. I took into careful consideration every note that was made. I appreciate it!
Jjvargas7 (talk) 01:29, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
Welcome! edit
Hello, Jjvargas7, and welcome to Wikipedia! My name is Shalor and I work with the Wiki Education Foundation; I help support students who are editing as part of a class assignment.
I hope you enjoy editing here. If you haven't already done so, please check out the student training library, which introduces you to editing and Wikipedia's core principles. You may also want to check out the Teahouse, a community of Wikipedia editors dedicated to helping new users. Below are some resources to help you get started editing.
Handouts
|
|---|
Additional Resources
|
|
If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact me on my talk page. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 18:15, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:Health Policy in Luxembourg, a page you created, has not been edited in 5 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.
If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.
You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.
If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.
Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 01:33, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
ArbCom 2018 election voter message edit
Hello, Jjvargas7. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)