Talk:China–Pakistan Free Trade Agreement

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 18:59, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Seeking help editing

Hi everyone! I am a student who is new to Wikipedia. I have been editing this article over the past few months by carrying out research on the China-Pakistan Free Trade Agreement. I have made significant updates to this article and have now put around 2000 words in it. If anyone has any feedback or thinks I should make any modifications, please let me know! You can contact me on my talk page (User_talk:S2102sa), or, right here on the article's talk page!

I would like to also thank all those who have helped me already, being a new Wikipedia editor can be tricky but the Wikipedia community kindly helped me when I needed it.

Thank you! S2102sa (talk) 13:57, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Did you know nomination

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 BlueMoonset (talk) 05:00, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
Insufficient expansion to qualify for DYK; closing as unsuccessful

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that the 2006 China–Pakistan Free Trade Agreement increased trade between China and Pakistan by 242%? Source: The Pakistan Business Council
  • ALT1:... that Pakistan is a major exporter to China for cotton? Source: Pakistan Today
  • ALT2:... that China is a major exporter to Pakistan for footwear? Source: Pakistan Today

5x expanded by S2102sa (talk). Self-nominated at 08:36, 7 June 2021 (UTC).

• General eligibility:

• New enough: - Nominator started to significantly expand the article on 11 May, 27 days prior to nomination. The second phase started on 25 May, but all edits on 25-31 May cannot be considered a 5x expansion (they were, if anything, a 2x expansion). Also, per the fivefold rule, the seven days start from the day you started expanding the article, not when you finished doing so, so you have placed the article under the wrong date (should have been 11 May).
• Long enough:

Policy compliance:

• Adequate sourcing:
• Neutral: - Clearly written from the Pakistani viewpoint, with much more coverage of the details as seen by Pakistan and Pakistani businessmen.
• Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Cited: Interesting:

QPQ: None required.

Overall: The article fails the "newness" criterion for eligibility by a wide margin (I'd not pay that much attention if the article was a day too late, but 27 days is a little too long). The article should have been nominated under the 11 May section. The length is good (ca. 9.5K characters, 1.5K words). Sourcing is pretty good, though addition of (more) news articles from reliable sources would be great. Even as the consequences for China are mentioned, the article is focused much more on the Pakistani side of the deal (evaluations/criticisms, for instance, do not mention any Chinese reactions at all). That is a pity, because the hook is very good. Anyway, there is a lot to work on the article, and next time be tighter with your schedule. Your edits are very much appreciated and the article looks certainly better than the version from late April, so keep going. Cheers. This is my second DYK review. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 00:17, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

@Szmenderowiecki: Thanks for the feedback! Since this is a fairly new topic, sources are limited. I exhausted pretty much all of the reliable journal articles and the news articles are reporting the exact same information, making it redundant to use more of them. Criticisms/evaluations/reactions from China was not apparent in any of the journal articles nor the newspapers, so I wrote the article with what reliable information was available. It might simply be that Pakistani scholarship has been more inclined to report on the CPFTA, or sources that are in English are written mostly by Pakistani scholars. When more information arises on China's p.o.v. on the FTA as it progresses, I'll be sure to update the page. Thank you again for the feedback! S2102sa (talk) 09:39, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:China–Pakistan Free Trade Agreement/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Shushugah (talk · contribs) 21:57, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

1. NWell written: Many technical phrases/concepts are mentioned, but not elaborated further, for example Balance of payment, Preferential Trade Agreement (mentioned only in the lede). Some phrases are either ambiguous, or inaccurate interpretation of sources for example By 2018 their trade deficit was 35% doesn't specify what it's referring to (China's role in Pakistan's trade deficit).

2. Y No original research, from what I could garner so far.

3/4. N, the criticism/sourcing is heavily from Pakistan perspective and very little is noted from China's perspective. If it were not for the photo caption, I wouldn't have known that president Xi Jinping signed it even. Some of the subsections either feel like WP:COATRACK or do not adequately summarize what it is, for example Balance of Payment.

5/6. Y

This article has potential, but needs some work, including improved/diverse sourcing and WP:DUE WEIGHT from China's perspective. For an Article dedicated to highly technical trade/economic terms, the standards for it should be high as well. It does not pass a GA nomination from me, at this point. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 21:57, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Friendly ping to User:S2102sa ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 22:11, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

And User:RealKnockout who nominated the article for GA status. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 22:16, 12 December 2021 (UTC)