Talk:Vietnam and the World Bank

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 3 October 2018 and 15 December 2018. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): FENGDIAN YANG.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 04:41, 18 January 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): Jose Cajero.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 04:41, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Comments

Great job!! This was so impressive, I don't think you even need to edit anything or add more information. It was very thorough and well organized. I love that you explained things in depth and covered every aspect of the World Banks relation with Vietnam. I also love that you added an image. 1. I thought you had an introduction that was very thorough. 2. The structure was very clear and organized so well. 3. You covered every aspect of the relation between the World Bank and Vietnam. 4. The language was neutral and it was just a very informative article overall. 5. I love that you went above and beyong and added so many sources.

I really like your page overall! very good job and I appreciate the fact that you added pictures! If I was you the only thing I would review the wording of some of the sentences, for instance the first one after the coma you said "the once one of the..." 1. The lead section of your page is very well structured, you mention things that you discus later in the article. Very good job! 2. The structure is perfect! very easy to understand which is really helpful because there is a lot of detailed information. 3. You covered information well and you cited your sources correctly. 4. The content is definitely neutral, good job on that! no need to change anything. 5. Your sources are reliable and there is a lot of them, very impressive work on that! Orisvm (talk) 20:29, 7 December 2018 (UTC)orisvm

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

Reviewer: Gog the Mild (talk · contribs) 20:41, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

I'll pick this one up. It may take me a couple of days to start it. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:41, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi Bobbychan193. I have noticed you doing excellent work on GOCE. I assume that this is your first GAN. Some quick first thoughts.

First thoughts

• The last sentence of IFC is not cited.
  • Did some research, couldn't find a source to cite or at least rescue it. Deleted it.
• There should not be anything in the lead which is not repeated, and usually expanded upon, in the main body. I would suggest moving the whole first paragraph of the lead down to the start of the main article, expanding it a little, and making it a Background section. Leave the lead for now - that gets worked once the main body is settled and you know what you are summarising.
  • I agree. I duplicated the first lead paragraph and made some minor expansion.
• I have similar thoughts about the second and third paragraphs of the lead.
  • I duplicated the second paragraph as well. The third paragraph is repeated (and expanded upon) in the main article.
• If Vietnam joined the World Bank in 1956, why has it only partnered since 1993? What, if anything, was happening in the intervening 37 years?
  • Vietnam joined the IRBD (one of the WBG organizations) in 1956. According to the other source, Vietnam has had a "partnership" with the WB since 1993. I've changed the wording of both sentences to make it less confusing.
• There is a mix of US and British English. Pick one.
  • American English. I went through the article once, albeit a little quickly. Besides one or two missing serial commas, I didn't find too many British terms outside of the CPF quotes. Let me know if you spot instances of British English usage.

This. Try installing User:Ohconfucius/EngvarB. Handy for copy editing.

If I'm not mistaken, "analyses" is the plural form of "analysis". "Analyzes" is the singular verb form for "analyze". E.g. They analyze the document / He analyzes the document vs. His analysis was complete / His analyses were complete I did a quick Google search as well; didn't find any mentions of "analyses" being a British term. I've reverted it for now, but let me know if I'm mistaken. Also, thanks for the tool.

You are correct. I seem to have trusted the tool and inadequately analysed its output. Wiktionary gives analyze as the US verb form of the British analyse. I didn't look hard enough to realise that it was a plural, not a verb. Apologies.

All good.

• Have a look at some of the use of English. Eg "made several refusals to structural adjustments proposed by the WB" which IMO needs rephrasing; or "raised concerns about the program's quality; the borrower performance of the project was rated unsatisfactory" You and me know that "borrower" refers to Vietnam, but how does a reader work that out.
  • Reworded both.
• MOS:CONFORM says "The source must be named in article text if the quotation is an opinion.
  • Does this only apply to direct quotes Yes, or also stuff like the Controversies section No? I fixed one instance of this related to a direct quote.

• IMO quite a few Wikilinks could be usefully added.
  • Added a few, let me know if the article needs more.

Added some more. Let's see how it goes.

Thanks. I have a hard time determining between needed links and overlinking.

IMO there is a fair degree of subjectivity, and personally I give a fair bit of lee way at GAN. Other editors may be stricter in enforcing their interpretation of the guidelines - both ways. (IMO, custom and practice strays way into WP:OVERLINK, but if I want my articles to go through it is (much) easier to go with the flow.)

Got it.

• Have a look at MOS:CAPS. IMO there are several cases where initial upper case letters need to be removed. See what you think.
  • Removed one or two. Let me know if there are others.

I struggle to see "Project Performance Assessment Report" and similar as proper nouns. I am open to discussion and persuasion re this.

These were capitalized in the sources given, which suggests that they may be formalized processes or procedures. I think they also help the reader identify that these are associated with the World Bank or some other organization.

Fine by me for this GAN. But note that the MoS often overrides the source. I won't bore you with examples.

I am slowly familiarizing myself with MOS. It was incredibly daunting at first, but I am gradually learning the intricacies of Wikipedia.

Yeah. Tell me about it. I remember hitting the ground running at GOCE 20 months ago, armed with large amounts of enthusiasm and ignorance. Fortunately I had had Reidgreg with endless patience and apparently bottomless knowledge to set me straight, but even so, it sometimes felt that the reduction of my ignorance was directly related to a reduction in enthusiasm. I survived. Even now every month brings some new element of the MoS to my attention; a good/bad month brings a direct contradiction of something which I had thought was a part of the MoS. I tell my self that this is character forming. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:56, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Appreciate the share. I'm glad the MOS is there. It's very useful and also humbling at the same time.

• Consider adding alt text - optional.
  • Done.
• You make a lot of use of extended quotes, which is discouraged - MOS:QUOTE.
  • Currently, the long extended quote from the CPF reads: Comprehensive engagement to strengthen private sector development and participation across sectors; Support to achieve the financial sustainability of public services and transfers; Support to poverty reduction amongst ethnic minorities, through activities that generate jobs and incomes; Multisector engagements to strengthen linkages between education and the labor market; and Promote and stimulate low carbon energy generation. What do you think about the following revision? strengthening private sector development, supporting financial sustainability and poverty reduction, improving education, and promoting low carbon energy generation.

Sounds like exactly what the guideline is encouraging and what a good copy editor would do.

Done.

• Quotes longer than about 40 words should be block quotes - MOS:BQ.
  • See above.
• Possibly the two sub-sections of Future goals and strategy shifts should be the other way around?
  • Swapped.

As I said, just quick first thoughts. Let me know what you think. Once we get this sorted I'll give it a proper read through. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:28, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

@Gog the Mild: Yes, this is my first GAN. Thanks for picking this one up, and thanks for the feedback thus far. I’m currently traveling, so I can’t really make any edits. I will take a more detailed look when I get some free time. Thanks again. Bobbychan193 (talk) 21:55, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

No worries, no rush. If you haven't started in, say, a week, could you give me another ping to keep me up to date. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:57, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

@Gog the Mild: I've just found some free time to do some preliminary edits. My responses to each of your previous bulletpoints are sub-bulleted in bold. Let me know if you have any questions or concerns. Bobbychan193 (talk) 07:15, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Sources

• Sources look broadly OK for GAN, however, there are some issues, eg:

• When citing to a lengthy document you need to give a page number or, limited, range, which directly supports the information in the article. So cite 4, with *cough* 159 pages referred to, is not useful for a reader to check your text; which is the point of a cite. See also cites, 5, 6, 17, 18, 20 and others in this respect.

• Question: Should I use the page number at the bottom of each page, or the page number based on the overall PDF? For example, page 26 of the document is actually page 36 of the PDF. I decided to use the PDF number; it makes more sense because the reader would have an easier time jumping to a specific PDF page rather than manually finding a document page. Also, some of the document's numbers are in Roman numerals and that could get confusing for the reader. Another question: for citations that are duplicated, such as 4 and 5, how do I indicate different page numbers? For example, the first instance of citation 5 relies on pages 27, 30, and 85, while the second instance relies on page 28. I don't want to just list out 27, 28, 30, and 85 for both instances.

That's two different cites. A bit like cites 2 and 3. If I use a book, I might have 40 different and separate cites. (Eg see Siege of Calais (1346–1347) cites 51-57.)

I will take a look and update the cites. So I just updated the citations. Not sure how to get it in the style of that article, with all the sources and citations neatly grouped up and not unnecessarily duplicated. Will continue to work through the other sources. Done for now.

• Adding a template to remind myself to finish the rest of the cites:  On hold

• Done for now.

• Accuracy? Eg cite 7. The chart does support "projects relating to infrastructure and rural services construction comprised the largest part", but not "almost a quarter of all projects": or do you disagree? If not, are you confident of the accuracy of the other cites?

• You're right. Good catch. Regarding the other cites, I do remember checking most of them in my first copy edit back in July for the GOCE drive. If anything isn't a direct quotation, it might have factual errors. I'll check them (and do a thorough copy edit of the whole article) when I get more time.

No need to recheck. If you have done this once and I just happened to catch a not blindingly obviously faulty cite, don't worry.

Sounds good.

• What is the difference between cites 2 and 3?

• Cite 2 leads to the "Context" tab, while cite 3 leads to the "Results" tab. I originally differentiated between the two to allow the readers to more easily find the cited claims in the original source. Let me know if you would rather I combine them.

No, you are correct; I was flicking back and forth between 9 or 10 open tabs and missed that.

Prose

• The prose bar for GA is not high ("the prose is clear and concise"; see below in edit mode), however:

• "Rural roads in Lai Chau Province were upgraded to facilitate transportation." And for what other possible reason might roads be upgraded?

• Trimmed.

• "Of all the projects implemented in Vietnam and supported by the WBG, projects relating to infrastructure and rural services construction comprised the largest part, almost a quarter of all projects."Erm, is there a copy editor in the house? Maybe 'More WBG supported projects were funded in rural services and related infrastructure – over a fifth of all projects – than in any other area' or similar?

• Trimmed.

• "was reported to help 87% of the people in the projected region have easy access to all-weather roads in 2014" 'to have helped'; "the projected region"? That last means something, but not, I suspect, what you are trying to communicate.

• How do I add a note/footnote? The original source (page 3) says People living within 2 km of an all-weather road increased from 76% at appraisal to 87% at project closure, but I don't want to quote it because it's a little confusing. Plus, the reader doesn't know when the appraisal and closure dates are anyway, so it defeats the purpose of the quote. By not using the quote, I was able to simplify dates and whatnot a bit, but having a note would be best to clarify things.

I always use Harvard style footnotes, so that is slightly different. A little playing around produced something that worked. I have left it in the article. It may need moving; and will need content adding and a valid cite inserting, but hopefully you get the idea. It may be worth saving this diff. I have a page for templates, tips, MoS rules, and tricks of layout and other bits and pieces; you may wish to create something similar. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:37, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. Saved.

• "1.3 million rural residents in Red River Delta region" Lack of a definite article.
• "to improve the living condition of urban poor" Ditto.
• "At the same time": "2004 to 2014": one of these is redundant.
• "At the same time": "was". Ditto.
• I would let some of these go, this is only GAN; but the last six were all in one short, randomly selected paragraph. (Others are worse.) So, on the whole, I don't think that 1a is met. (Fixing just the issues I have identified will not fix this: the article needs a thorough copy edit.)

• Refined the entire paragraph. All of these issues should be gone. I will copy edit the rest of the article.

A few more thoughts above. Good work on my earlier comments; although I haven't done a thorough review of your changes. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:04, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

@Gog the Mild: I've fixed and commented on all of the earlier replies you gave. Thanks for the additional comments. The new comments will take a while to get resolved, and my flight is in a few hours. I think I'll try to resolve them one at a time, and edit in comments here accordingly. I'll ping you after I fully resolve all of the later issues. Bobbychan193 (talk) 18:43, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

No rush. Your edits all seem to be moving things in the right direction. As above, take as long as you reasonably need. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:26, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

@Gog the Mild: I just finished my copy edit. I think I'm done editing the article for now. There are probably more improvements to be made. If you find any, let me know. Bobbychan193 (talk) 01:32, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Just added sub-headings to make this page easier to navigate and edit. Bobbychan193 (talk) 01:34, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Second thoughts

I have done a little copy editing, which you will want to check. Feel entirely free to flag up here, or simply revert, anything you are not happy with.

Sounds good. Everything looks fine.

• "Vietnam was once one of the world's least developed countries." An indication of just when would be helpful. Looking at the source, something like 'Until the mid-1980's Vietnam was one of the world's least developed countries.'?

• Fixed.

• An explanation of the difference between the WBG and the WB would be good.

• Added.

• Optional: "44 of which are active" seems to beg an 'as of 2019', or even { {as of|2019|lc=on} }.

• Looks like you already did this.

I hadn't, but as you are agreeable I now have.

My mistake, I think I thought another similar change you did was referring to that. Thanks for the fix.

• "through 165 operations and projects"; "has witnessed more than 270 projects or advisory and analytic activities". This looks like a contradiction.

• Both are correct according to their respective sources (which both come from the World Bank). I speculate that the latter is broader in scope, as it includes "advisory and analytic activities" in addition to projects. However, I don't want to write anything that could be considered original research.

OK.

• "as illustrated in the new Country Partnership Framework (CPF)" ' ... published in ????'?

• Clarified. Expanded body as well.

Good.

• "In an effort to support the inclusive reforms in Vietnam" Genuine question, what is an inclusive reform?

• I suspect the original editor was referring to how the reforms try to help/include disadvantaged social groups, such as the poor. Regardless, I deleted the term.

• "Vietnam joined the International Development Association (IDA) on 24 September 1960, the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (IBRD) on 21 September 1956, the International Finance Corporation (IFC) on 4 August 1967, and the Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency (MIGA) on 5 October 1994." Could it be mentioned that these are the "four of the WBG's five organizations" referred to earlier?

• I think with the new paragraph in Background, this is now more clear.

It is.

• "through increasing their financial access" Would that be 'their access to finance'? If not, then I don't understand.

• Fixed.

• "the "Primary Education Project" " Other projects don't have inverted commas; why does this one?

• Fixed.

• "It increased the enrollment rate from" "enrollment rate" needs either explaining or linkinking. (Or both.)

• Added explanation.

• "raised the access rate of" Ditto "access rate", and how does it differ from "enrollment rate"?

• Fixed, and also expanded.

Looking good.

Currently working through. Bobbychan193 (talk) 18:53, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

@Gog the Mild: Done for now. Bobbychan193 (talk) 19:29, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Very good work. Happy to promote.

Now that you have done this one, there are a lot of Somewhere and the World Bank articles, most of which could do with improving. Cherry picking some of the better ones to bring up to GA might be an interesting task. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:11, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

@Gog the Mild: Thanks for the promotion. I agree, there are quite a few of those articles, as well as similar articles with the International Monetary Fund. Most if not all of these articles seem to be written by college students as part of a Wiki education course. Improving these articles will take a while and can definitely be more of a long-term project for me. For now though, I’ll probably be focusing on other things. Bobbychan193 (talk) 18:22, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Good Article review progress box Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV () 3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant () Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Poli 144D Peer Review

Hi @Jose Cajero, great job on the Wikipedia page! This is really nicely done

For the First Pillar, the lead section is informative and inclusive. You did a great job summing up WB's development in Vietnam with some of the domestic knowledge of Vietnam. However, the only problem is that I didn't see any link to citations, in which I am not sure if it can be subject to questioning, and it would be great if there can be several citations. For the Second Pillar, the overall structure is excellent, as I couldn't find many suggestions to give. If I were to be particularly picky, perhaps move the MIGA section under 'Strategic Partnership' below other WB groups right next to IFC. For the Third Pillar, the coverage is well-balanced between involvement(partnership) and significant projects, in which I can't find much to suggest. For the Fourth Pillar, I feel the language is objective, in which I can't detect any opinions from the author. For the Fifth Pillar, the sources are mostly from WB documents and websites, which I don't believe is a bad choice, as they are often non-biased and truthful. However, with the last section regarding the controversies, the entire section is based on one source, for which I don't know if it should contribute the amount of proportion to the page.

I feel like I am being extremely picky for the review, this is still one of the best pages I have yet seen. Runnan Yang @Ruy043 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ruy043 (talk • contribs) 05:33, 6 December 2019 (UTC)