Template:Did you know nominations/China-Pakistan Free Trade Agreement

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

China–Pakistan Free Trade Agreement

(

)

... 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)