Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/International Bank for Reconstruction and Development/1

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Bank for Reconstruction and Development/1&action=watch Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: Delist Consensus is to delist AIRcorn (talk) 04:14, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This article relies too much on references to primary sources.(20/21) Clear Sky Talk 13:16, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delist – I agree with Clear Sky C. Out of the 21 sources, 17 are primary sources, mostly from the World Bank itself. This is far more primary sources than should be allowed in a Wikipedia article of any quality. In addition, this article is rather short and fails the comprehensiveness requirement.Homemade Pencils (talk) 20:09, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delist – should automatically be delisted per the primary sources template. I did check the references, which does heavily rely on primary sources. Due to this, it cannot meet Good Article criteria. CookieMonster755 ✉ 02:30, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]