Talk:Trade Facilitation Agreement

You shouldn't place external links within articles.
Hi,. I skimmed your article to see if I could help with any minor edits or suggestions and I had noticed that you had put an external link within the body of the article to a blog about "ad valorem". If this blog post was meant to be a citation, first, blog posts shouldn't be used as citations on Wikipedia. Second, a citation should be done the way you have done your other citations where they are placed as a superscript number that links to footnotes. If you want to link readers to an explanatory page about "ad valorem", then perhaps this page does the trick: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_valorem_tax

Here is the section of the style guide about the use of external links: WP:ELPOINTS

Don't hesitate to ask me any questions you may have. You could also reach out on the Wiki Education noticeboard or you could even reach out on the Teahouse where you asked for help before (I left you a note there again, actually). I also want to recommend the trainings for students which are available here: Training/For students. Sincerely, Shashi Sushila Murray, (message me) 05:41, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
 * PS. I also just found this student Q&A site which is available here: https://ask.wikiedu.org Sincerely, Shashi Sushila Murray, (message me) 05:43, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Additional feedback.
Hi again. Welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your contributions.

I just took the time to read through your article draft. I want to give a full disclosure: I am a relatively new editor myself, but I think I can provide some useful feedback.
 * I marked some sentences that needed clarification with some tags that should be straightforward once you see them.
 * I added two comments to the article. I'll copy and paste them here so you can read them on the talk page too:
 * For the history section I wrote: "I think that you're using this citation for each of those preceding quotes. That is fine, but you can see that while I read the article I didn't realize this, so you could reuse the citation for those prior quotes." I wrote this, because I had started to mark the quotes with.
 * At the end of the "The Agreement" section I wrote: "Perhaps this section needs to be moved prior to the first mention of categories B and C." (I was confused while reading by what you meant by "categories B and C" since you hadn't explained what they were yet).

Now that I've read it I think I see some of what is prompting reviewers to reject it as an essay. Some of the writing makes it sound like you're advocating for the agreement or that you're doing your own interpretation of the sources to write favorably about it. If those sources are speaking favorably of the agreement, great! But it does sound more like an essay (it's challenging to write your text like you would in an encyclopedia entry). One thing that you could do is to find sources that criticize the agreement (assuming that they exist and that you can find them from authoritative sources). If you can, you could incorporate a criticisms (or reaction) section into the article.

Again: I am a new editor too, so I am not sure if this feedback would get you past the reviewers who are saying that it sounds like an essay. I recommend reaching out on that Wiki Education noticeboard for a Wiki Ed representative to help provide feedback.

Let me know if this helps, if this makes sense, or if you have any questions or anything else I could help you with. You can also ask for help again at the Teahouse or at the Wiki Education noticeboard.

Sincerely, Shashi Sushila Murray, (message me) 00:34, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 19 March 2022

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 

The result of the move request was: moved. No objections have been raised, but the nomination statement does not make a clear argument for why the proposed title better meets WP:CRITERIA. So consider this equivalent to an uncontroversial technical move, for the purposes of consensus. Colin M (talk) 20:24, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

Trade Facilitation Agreement 2014 → Trade Facilitation Agreement – Trade Facilitation Agreement's page link to Bali Package, article which had information about the the TFA's negociation. Nouill (talk) 02:25, 19 March 2022 (UTC) — Relisting. Jerm (talk) 01:59, 27 March 2022 (UTC) — Relisting. 🐶 EpicPupper (he/him &#124; talk) 02:12, 27 March 2022 (UTC)  — Relisting. 🐶 EpicPupper (he/him &#124; talk) 07:13, 9 April 2022 (UTC) 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.