User talk:Mdpinksen/sandbox
Good use of ciations
Intro paragraph, maybe link the Canada Mexico FTA after you mention it?
Intro Paragraph, maybe expand on the goals of the agreement if possible (focus on the how versus the what)
- Ex.) Stimulate expansion & diversity of trade by …,
- May create more substance to the article, may explain the details of the agreement more thoroughly
Trade Statistics section is very good, information seems to be neutral, information is cited well and properly with functioning links. One suggestion is to put the statistics in chronological order, may help this section read better by having the most relevant/recent information first. If the “total trade between Chile and Mexico had increased by 1200% since the FTA came into effect” section is the most recent maybe you can say something along the lines of “As of 2017 or 2018…..”, depending on when the data you cited was found.
I feel like you can and are probably going to expand more into the Provisions category, so I can’t say anything about it other than it seems like a solid base for expanding the information even further. DominicMullaly (talk) 23:38, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
- Thank you for the suggestions DominicMullaly, they make perfect sense and I will try to incorporate them into my article. Also, I will be expanding on the goals of the agreement, and possibly adding it to a section of its own, prior to moving it to the mainspace. Mdpinksen (talk) 15:14, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
Jennifer'r and Shreya Peer Review Hi! You did a great job but I recommend the following:This article gives brief information about Chile-Mexico Free Trade Agreement. It outlines the summery of the agreement, purpose, and focus points. However, I do believe that information which is given in the article is narrow which does not show full picture of agreement. Such thing as detailed information about agreement is missing, as well as origins of why exactly agreement came up in first place is given in short way. Thus, I do believe that this sources lack depth in information and it gives only narrow information about agreement between countries, which in my opinion is huge limitation for sources.
In case of value of sources, I can say that sources have few values, first sources give narrow information about specific topic, which means that sources have focus on one specific thing, second sources have so called trade statistics which offers detailed information about statistic date of agreement, which gives reader statics information which can be useful in investigation of trade agreement in more depth way. Third value of source is that information of sources is divided between 3 different sub titles. I believe it is value of sources as in this way every information is organized and it is easy to access it.
In case of limitation of sources, I would say sources has 2 main limitations. First main limitation of sources is its references. Reference full of non-scholar resources, references are full of website links which some of them even do not work and it is a huge problem because it means that this information cannot be use in research or investigation purpose which at the same time makes this information useless. Second limitation of sources as I have mentioned before is depth of information. I do believe that information which sources provides is not type of information which can be used in investigation or research paper. I believe that information is really dry and lack depth analyzes . — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jventura03 (talk • contribs) 21:15, 13 March 2018 (UTC)