Jump to content

Template:Did you know nominations/Agreement on Textiles and Clothing

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: rejected by reviewer, closed by PrimalMustelid talk 00:16, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

DYK toolbox

Agreement on Textiles and Clothing

(
)

Created by RAJIVVASUDEV (talk). Self-nominated at 02:47, 31 July 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Agreement on Textiles and Clothing; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.

  • The hook does not (afaics) appear in the article, or the ref link above, It is surely a quote and needs quotation marks. Johnbod (talk) 03:38, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
@Johnbod: I agree with you; kindly ignore the previous hook and consider ALT, or ALT1. The source reads, "ATC, negotiated during the Uruguay Round, was seen as a potential area of benefit for the developing countries. Estimates at that time even suggested that over one-third of the total benefits from the Uruguay Round would result from the liberalisation of global trade in textiles and clothing." Thanks RV (talk) 07:09, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
@Johnbod: Just a soft reminder. Thanks RV (talk) 13:27, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
Sorry to have left this so long! Please sort out the numbering of the ALTs! They both have the same source, a long PDF, for which you don't give page numbers, which you need to. Why do you think this source is a WP:RS? They don't seem very independent. Johnbod (talk) 03:20, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
@Johnbod: Corrections has been made as per the comments. Kindly have a look. Thanks RV (talk) 17:03, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
  • GTG. Article is new and long-enough, & written ok (if underlinked). AGF on the ALT3 hook, with source behind a paywall. Earwig finds only standard phrases. Johnbod (talk) 01:50, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
I'm not sure ALT3 makes sense. Why does the word "abolition" appear there? It sounds like the argument is that the abolition of ATC was the game changer. Is this what was meant? From the article, I thought it was the opposite. Cielquiparle (talk) 06:14, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
@Cielquiparle: Yes! Abolition of ATC was the game changer.The article also supports this. Could you please clarify your doubts so that I can try to resolve them? Thank you. RV (talk) 06:54, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
@RAJIVVASUDEV: When I read the article, it says that ATC was "good" for China, and "created vast opportunities for export expansion from developing countries". But in your hook, you are saying the abolition of ATC – that is, the ENDING of ATC – was the game-changer for China. Don't you mean the opposite? I think the word "abolition" doesn't belong there and the hook makes sense without it. Or, the article doesn't contain enough information about why the ENDING (abolition) of ATC was such a game-changer for China. (Or...maybe you need to start over and write the hook fresh? I suspect what you meant to say was "the dismantling of quotas under ATC" or "the abolition of the quota system under ATC"...) Cielquiparle (talk) 12:47, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
@Cielquiparle: Additional hooks provided.Thanks RV (talk) 07:11, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
  • ALT 4 and 5 good to go, on AGF ALT 5 seems better. Johnbod (talk) 21:50, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
  • RAJIVVASUDEV, the hooks still say that the ATC eliminated a quota system, but the article says that its expiration eliminated a quota system. Cielquiparle's issues above have thus not been fixed. In addition, I would query the "interestingness" aspect of these hooks, and the intelligibility and readability of the article, which seems to need a copyedit for clarity, in my opinion. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:28, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
  • @AirshipJungleman29: Well noted your observations. Let's keep aside "interestingness" ALT5 says that the dismantling of quotas ... And the article also maintains that ATC facilitated the gradual dismantling of quotas that were in effect during the MFA period. The Agreement on Textiles and Clothing (ATC) stipulated a systematic and progressive elimination of the Multi Fiber Arrangement (MFA) over a span of ten years. This process culminated on 1 January 2005. RV (talk) 02:01, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
    • As long as we "keep aside interestingness", this DYK will also be "kept aside" RV. Your call. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:20, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
      • @AirshipJungleman29: There was nothing offensive about it. My point was to draw your attention to whether the points other than hook interestingness are clarified or not. Please confirm so that we can rework on the hook as well.RV (talk) 07:25, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
It's time to pass on this nomination dating to last July. The nominator has been given over a month to fix concerns related to writing an interesting hook which is listed as a review criteria at Wikipedia:Did you know/Reviewer instructions and WP:DYKHOOKSTYLE. The nominator's unwillingness to receive the critique and work on it in a timely fashion leaves us no choice but to reject the hook from appearing on the main page. Too much time has now elapsed and that is entirely on RV who was given plenty of notice. 4meter4 (talk) 14:21, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Agreement_on_Textiles_and_Clothing&oldid=1181429261"