Talk:Millennium Challenge Account

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Millennium Challenge Account article. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

Millennium Challenge Account was a good article candidate, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. Once the objections listed below are addressed, the article can be renominated. You may also seek a review of the decision if you feel there was a mistake. Date of review: 16 November 2006

Millennium Challenge Account was a good article candidate, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. Once the objections listed below are addressed, the article can be renominated. You may also seek a review of the decision if you feel there was a mistake. Date of review: 2007-03-30

	To-do list for Millennium Challenge Account:	edit  · history  · watch  · refresh
GA status!

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)

Also -- I don't know how to fix it myself so I'll just let it be known (sorry to nitpick): the map has Cote D'Ivoire colored red where as it should not be, and Ghana is not colored. Someone mixed them up. 70.108.125.101 02:48, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Failed "good article" nomination

This article failed good article nomination. This is how the article, as of March 30, 2007, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: Not particularly. Several of the issues above have not been addressed. Much of the prose is difficult to understand, e.g., what "corporation" is referred to in paragraph 2? The entries in the list of criteria are practically word salad, e.g. "Rule of Law Ruling Justly World Bank Institute". Some of the typos highlighted above persist in varied form, e.g. "Opposition MP's in Ugandan MP's from the opposition party" (it should be MPs), or "The funding of Tanzanias compact has been pushed foreword" (it should be Tanzania's).

2. Factually accurate?: No immediately apparent problems here.

3. Broad in coverage?: To provide an example, the sentence "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." criticised above has remained unchanged. I don't understand the context. What, why, how?

4. Neutral point of view?: Needs more expansion of criticism: who are the critics, and what in particular are their objections?

5. Article stability? Yes.

6. Images?: Adequate, but where are the references for the map?

When these issues are addressed, the article can be resubmitted for consideration. If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it to a GA review. Thank you for your work so far. — Sandstein 06:50, 30 March 2007 (UTC)