How do the regions literally stack up against each other in mainstreaming gender in project design? That was the central question I attempted to answer with this visualization. Columns showed both total projects by height and those that contained a gender component via red shading. (Mr. Das, I'd to know what you would consider more intuitive?) At a glance, you can see where most projects are based and the share that’s considered to have a decent gender component. What a suspiciously vague term: gender component. Here I definitely agree with Mr. Dmitrov. If you read the source report and feature story, they don’t fully define the term gender component and parameters of “minimal” to “detailed” gender coverage that I borrow from their graphs to make the legend for my visualization. However, they do both site examples, 1) All poverty assessment integrated gender issues as part of their labor market analysis, 2) Many projects leveraged additional funds from the Bank’s Gender Action Plan for work on women’s economic empowerment, 3) Country assistance strategy documents in African and East Asia and Pacific regions included gender analysis. In lending, where many of the largest gender gains were made, the report waxes unspecific. The Web editorial team discussed whether we should be creating a definition of a gender component. Is it within the Web’s scope to create institutional definitions as we explain ourselves and our work to those outside of the Bank? There’s a thirst for such action, as these comments demonstrate. In this case, however, a gender component doesn’t seem more or less vague than say a financial or educational component. We wouldn’t feel the need to explain these terms. So, we decided to let the phrase gender component pass. Perhaps, it was a mistake and we should more aggressively require units to work out their taxonomy online, like a public coming to terms on terms. An interesting discussion. A whole-hearted thanks for your comments.