Talk:Millennium Challenge Account

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Millennium Challenge Account article.
Please sign and date your posts using four tildes (~~~~). New discussion topics go at the bottom of the page; click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Frequently asked questions. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.	Talk page guidelines Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Don't bite the newcomers!

Millennium Challenge Account is a former good article candidate. There are suggestions below for which areas need improvement to satisfy the good article criteria. Once the objections are addressed, the article can be renominated as a good article. If you disagree with the objections, you can seek a review. Date of review: 16 November 2006

To-do list for Millennium Challenge Account:	edit · history · watch · refresh
http://www.cgdev.org/content/publications/?PubID=40 http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/developingnations/millennium.html http://usinfo.state.gov/wh/Archive/2005/May/21-19269.html http://www.cgdev.org/content/publications/detail/9957

The "imperialism" discussion is non-neutral. That is a rather fringe view that is not espoused by any mainstream member of the political or economic community. There also is not much of a description of the criteria or a reasoning behind it presented. The combination of those two points makes this article rather skewed.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bkwillwm (talk • contribs).

[edit] Failed GA

This article is full of sources, but it reads more like an essay in favor for the subject than an encyclopaedic collection of information. As a previous editor noted, it is presented from a particular view, violating WP:NPOV. Further evaluation of other criteria not considered (though at first glance I'm comfortable in saying this article is start class, possibly B-Class at best). /Blaxthos 09:02, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Additional GA review

Per a request that was made on 20 November 2006 on Good Article Review, I have taken a look at the article, and I also think it needs quite a bit more work before being considered for GA:

• NPOV issues found. The article reads like a press release. Examples:
  • The program uses a fully transparent method of choosing the recipient countries
  • Through this open process, the administration hopes to keep the MCA away from political influence
  • Also, Freedom House, an organization that monitors the level of freedom in the world, released subcategories for the first time since it was being used as part of the MCC's measurements and more detail was welcome
• The article badly needs a copyedit and spellcheck. Just a couple examples:
  • The funding of Tanzanias compact has been pushed foreword from May 2007 to an earlier date to accelerate reform
  • Implimentation has been difficult in Armenia, with concern about effectiveness is currently being discussed
  • In April 2005, the United States Government Accountability Office issued a favorable report about the work of the MCA and its work up till that point
  • Opposition MP's in Uganda hailed their countries rejection from full compact status, demanding instead a stronger effort in stopping corruption
  • Also, the days it takes to start a business in both low and low-middle income countries has increased significently since 2002, which is one of the factors the accounts measure. What does that mean? Is that a good thing or a bad thing?
• Problems with the introduction:
  • The lead section should summarize the rest of the article, it should not introduce information that is not discussed elsewhere. Example:
    • The Bush administration has stated their belief that development aid works better in countries with good economic policies, such as free markets and low corruption.. Uncited, only hinted at in other sections.
  • No citations in the lead section.
• Not comprehensive:
  • Countries are selected on a competitive basis through a set of 16 indicators designed to measure a country’s effectiveness at ruling justly, investing in people, and fostering enterprise and entrepreneurship. What are the 16 indicators? Don't just tell the reader to go to the MCA website to find them
  • Congress has consistently provided less funding for the program than the president requested. In Fiscal Year 2004, 650 million USD were provided for the program, with an increase up to 1.5 billion the next year. Why not?
• Inconsistent:
  • Through this program, the administration proposed to permanently increase United States foreign aid funding by $5 billion by 2005 (in the introduction), and For Fiscal Year 2007, 2 billion dollars were provided, a 14% increase over the previous year but still under the 3 billion target (in the history section). What's the targeted funding level?

There may be more issues, but this gives you something to start with. In summary, if I was the reviewer, I would decline to promote this article to GA. Hope that helps. Good luck. Neil916 (Talk) 17:56, 20 November 2006 (UTC)