User talk:Innakocharyan

Welcome!
  Hello, Innakocharyan!  Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

  Getting Started

Tutorial Learn everything you need to know to get started. Introduction to contributing • Editing

• Referencing

• Images

• Tables

• Policies and guidelines

• Talk pages

• Navigating

• Manual of Style

The Teahouse Ask questions and get help from experienced editors.

The Task Center Learn what Wikipedians do and discover how to help.

Tips 
 * Don't be afraid to edit! Just find something that can be improved and make it better. Other editors will help fix any mistakes you make.
 * It's normal to feel a little overwhelmed, but don't worry if you don't understand everything at first—it's fine to edit using common sense.
 * If an edit you make is reverted, you can discuss the issue at the article's talk page. Be civil, and don't restore the edit unless there is consensus.
 * Always use edit summaries to explain your changes.
 * When adding new content to an article, always include a citation to a reliable source.
 * If you wish to edit about a subject with which you are affiliated, read our conflict of interest guide and disclose your connection.
 * Have fun! Your presence in the Wikipedia community is welcome.

Happy editing! Cheers, 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 18:19, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

But
As a new editor, you should begin by reading the article you want to edit, to understand its scope. The article Trade diversion that you edited has no specific case studies, so there was no evident place for your contribution. You can't just add new material at random: at the very least you would have had to create a new section, with its own introduction and certainly more than one example. You also need to be careful to avoid cherry-picking.

In addition, it is critically important that you report citations honestly, that what you write is an accurate summary of what they say. You did a great job of providing a citation, so thank you for that. Your only omission was a page=. So I had a search and on page 51 I found As shown in annex 4 (Table A4.2), instances of trade diversion were limited to a few cases, with traders reporting switching from non-EAEU to EAEU suppliers to avoid the higher EAEU CET. Your version implied that the diversion was substantial, so it was not an accurate report. Nor did you provide evidence that it was unexpected. (One of the key attributes of "trade diversion" is that it describes a change in trade flows that could not have been reasonably foreseen at the time of the FTA. Therefore any examples would have to show that the damage was unexpected because there are individual winners and losers in any agreement – the parties to the Agreement enter it in the expectation that the overall balance will be to their advantage.)

If you would like more help with this, please ask at the Teahouse. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 18:19, 11 December 2022 (UTC)