User talk:S2102sa

Thanks for your query on my TalkPage. Glad to see if I can be of any help. Here are some points, perhaps some in more detail than you need at the moment, but might be helful in the long run.

• Your expansion is thoughtful and useful, not just a school exercise, particularly in adding the section on Economic effects. I assume that you might want to add more substance (see below on finding references).

• You did well to take the full citations out of the footnotes and create a “References” section for them. Readers will appreciate being able to quickly see a list rather than going through the notes. They will also appreciate how you cleaned up the formatting (e.g LAHORE JOURNAL OF ECONOMICS to “Lahore Journal of Economics.” Also good to cut down the See also section.

• Technical point. Only the first word in an article title or section heading is capitalized, that is, “China–Pakistan Free Trade Agreement,” “Economic effects.....” not “Economic Effects....”

• For technical or policy help, it’s faster to Google “Wikipedia Article title format” or whatever than to search Wikipedia for it.

• One trick for finding more references, if you haven’t done it already, is to create a userspace article with a name that is almost the same as your article, in this case, maybe Pakistan China free trade agreement. Clicking on this will get a message, “no such article,” and ask if you want to create a special myspace article, which will have an extremely useful box with “Find Sources” and “Easy tools.” You can see one of mine at User:CWH/Biographical Dictionary of Republican China. This is also a useful space for experiments and keeping notes to copy into the real article.

An optional improvement in formatting the notes, especially if you enjoy using a little Wiki power formatting. Short citations that will save you time in the long run and the big advantage for readers is that the footnote is linked directly to the entry in the References section, and the big advantage for the editor is that it produces correct form with no fuss. There is certainly no compulsion to use it, but it is widely used among experienced editors such as we hope you will become. I admit that it took me some experimentation and some mistakes, but it becomes as easy as spelling.

There are several ways to cite described in WP:CITESHORT or the main article Help: Shortened Footnotes.

You can see the system in many (but not all) notes in Qing dynasty or Franz Kafka.

Here are some examples.

For instance, in the Reference section a book would be listed (I've marked this "no wiki" in order to prevent it from formmatting, which you can see if you "edit" this page):

• {{cite book |last = Kohn |first =Livia |year = 2009 |title = Introducing Daoism |publisher = Routledge| location = London ; New York|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=ftiJ2sTwf54C&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false |isbn = 9780415439978|ref = harv}},

which would produce

• Kohn, Livia (2009). Introducing Daoism. London ; New York: Routledge. ISBN 9780415439978. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)

A journal article would be listed

• {{cite journal |last = Ownby |first =David |authorlink = |title =The Heaven and Earth Society as Popular Religion |journal =The Journal of Asian Studies |volume =54 |issue = 4 |pages =1023-1046 |publisher = |location = |date =1995 |language = |url = http://www.jstor.org/stable/2059958 |jstor = |issn = |doi = 10.2307/2059958 |accessdate = |ref= harv}}

This would produce

• Ownby, David (1995). "The Heaven and Earth Society as Popular Religion". The Journal of Asian Studies. 54 (4): 1023–1046. doi:10.2307/2059958. {{cite journal}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)

Then to make a footnote reference, in the text insert

• {{sfnb|Kohn|2009| p = 10}} or {{sfnb|Ownby|1995| p = 1023}}

which would produce

• ^[1] and ^[2]

The reference section would then be as follows, where you could click the link to get to the full listing (here the listing is above, but obviously in a real article it would be in the Readings section):

Sorry if this is too much. Please let me know if you want or need comments or advice of another sort.ch (talk) 04:51, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

PS I edited the page as an example of what might be done to the notes.ch (talk) 04:55, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

@CWH: Thank you so much for the advice it is of so much help to me as a new Wikipedia editor! I was wondering how to link footnotes to the reference list so your advice is of great use to me! I will implement all that you said in the article.

Just another question, I was wondering how I could make a single footnote for multiple citations in the article that use the same page in the same source for example if I cite (Smith et al. 2020, p.2) multiple times in the article, is there a way to make it appear as a single footnote for every time page 2 was cited rather than having page 2 of that source listed multiple times in the footnote section? Does that make sense? I also wanted to know how I can improve the rating of my article. My ultimate goal is to get it to a B-class or above article, so how should I go about doing that?

Thank you so much again, your advice is extremely helpful! S2102sa (talk) 06:55, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Good question. The sfnb uses "p=X", e.g. {{sfnb|S2021sa|2021|p=31412}}. When you use this in several footnotes, ^[1],^[1], it amalgamates them (as in the Ali note that I edited as an example).

My guess is that this article could indeed rise to B rating. The formatting is important, but adding substance even more important. I can see that it's a problem that the subject is comparatively recent, so that there may not be extensive coverage in WP:Reliable Sources, such as articles in peer reviewed journals and books from heavy-weight presses. See if the references that are there now have links to online articles, and whether there are more in the same place. Often Google Scholar can find them. Google Scholar will also tell you which sources cite an article, so just search the present articles (though again, it may be too recent to get many). If you have access to the university library, you could ask a librarian for help -- they are wonderful people.

Perhaps add a section "Reactions" or "Evaluations." One or two paragraphs. "Prof. X pointed to advantages for industrialists and drawback for workers, but Dr. Y of Lahore University emphasised the stimulus for transportation and other points." Maybe expand here on the sentence in the lead to specify what the criticisms were and maybe a couple of sentences on the context of China-Pakistan relations in a sentence or two. Are there strategic alliance connections? BRI? Someone probably commented on the long-term effects. Also maybe add the date in the lead sentence?

Keep the questions coming! ch (talk) 15:38, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

@CWH: I just updated the references in China-Pakistan Free Trade Agreement using your advice, and it worked! Thank you so much! I will further expand the second phase section as I have more information on that, and I will add a 'Reactions' section for the second phase, as per your suggestion. I'll let you know when I have completed that. I also wanted to know if adding more newspaper articles would be good, like you said this topic is fairly recent so I think I have exhausted the journal articles. Also, how should I ask for a reassessment? I received one for one of the Wikiprojects the article is associated with, but what is the quickest way to get an article assessed?

Thank you again for all your help! S2102sa (talk) 11:08, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Congrats on the reassessment! Also, keep up the good work. Wikipedia is especially useful for this type of important mid-level topic where there are few if any books and most readers will not have time or energy to read academic articles (even if they have access to them). The media and businesses want information that is clear, reliable, and immediate. I'd bet that information from this article will circulate in influential places, even on the air, unattributed, of course.ch (talk) 15:45, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

@CWH: Thank you so much! I just put in the finishing touches to the article. Among other tweaks, I updated the second phase section, added a few sentences in the lead to specify the criticism as per your suggestion and added in some media. Let me know if you have any other suggestions or feedback! S2102sa (talk) 04:37, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

You have turned this into a strong and useful article. Many thanks for this smart and hard work! I took the liberty of edits to tighten the lead, as it is often easier for an outsider to see what is essential. If you want a couple of further suggestions, there are some minor and optional possibilities. You could also reduce the number of notes in the lead, since there is no need to document general material that is already sourced in the article, only statistics etc. You might also reduce the multiple notes in the body of the article, to avoid overkill and making the article look cluttered. The "Key dates" charts are a very good idea, but they are hard to read, even on my desktop. Is there a way to enlarge them?

Again, I hope you will continue to edit, either creating new articles or updating and improving existing ones.ch (talk) 23:52, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

@CWH: Thank you so much for all your help! Yes, definitely! I really like how Wikipedia is all about teamwork to make the best possible article, it really shows that two heads are indeed better than one. Okay, thanks I will read over the article again and try and reduce the excess information. I just changed the size of the key dates charts, let me know if that is better. Thank you so much! S2102sa (talk) 01:30, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

@S2102sa: The following are just suggestions. I am fine with the article at the moment, whether they are followed or not:

I would suggest that the text in the paragraph which starts 'The objective of the first phase' be split and moved to the first phase and second phase sections. It is more the style of an essay than an encyclopaedia article the way it is written. Particularly with the nature of Wikipedia, as people scan the article and add information where they think it fits. Not everybody will read the whole article before they edit it. Some might just see something about the first phase and add it to where they first see it. Others will skip reading the background and use the contents tab to go straight to the part of the article they want to read or edit. Information is not usually repeated in an introduction and summary as it is in an essay, except in the lede which can briefly summarize the most important points. The nature of an encyclopedia is that the whole article is a summary.The objective is to summarise the source in your own words keeping the message and the meaning as close to the source as possible, without expressing your own views. Putting criticisms at the top of the article could be seen as a way of emphasising them, so as to get a point across early in the article, but in my opinion that information would be better in the 'Criticisms of the first phase' subsection. Also, I notice that most of the sources for the article are Pakistani. It may be useful to find some Chinese sources if possible, so that the article is balanced both from Pakistani and Chinese points of view. Particularly if most of the editors are Pakistani too. Amirah talk 19:40, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

It could also be useful to look at other international agreements with China such as the Comprehensive Agreement on Investment which may tie in with the article or at least could be mentioned on under 'See also'.Amirah talk 19:57, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

You could also put a link to the wording of the FTA itself in External Links section. It can be found in English on Amirah talk 20:05, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

is an interesting source as it mentions how Pakistan's exports to the West have been effected during Covid-19 pandemic and also the construction of road and sea infrastructure which is all relevant. The economic corridoor has been mention under See also, but it could also be mentioned in the text of the article. Amirah talk 20:29, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

I was looking at the reference to China Briefing in the list of general references and wondering if it is a reliable source. There was a recent Op-ed in China Briefing which expresses some very bias points of view and does not appear to be written in a very professional manner. Amirah talk 20:46, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Hey there, just wanted to let you know I recently reassessed the China–Pakistan Free Trade Agreement page before you made your request, so I deleted your request. Also, I gave you feedback on the page when replying to your post on the WikiProject Pakistan discussion page. See my reply there. RealKnockout (talk) 01:53, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

@RealKnockout: Thank you so much! S2102sa (talk) 11:08, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Hello! Your submission of China-Pakistan Free Trade Agreement at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) at your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Your edits are greatly appreciated, but I'm afraid that your nomination is likely not going to pass. Don't give up, though - the expansion has been decent. Keep going. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 01:20, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Hey there. I added a paragraph on how Pakistan relaxes shareholding restrictions on Chinese investment as part of the 1st phase of the China-Pakistan Free Trade Agreement, but currently, the only source for that is a press release from the Chinese news agency "People's Daily". Can you review the edit and make sure I have written the paragraph correctly? Thanks. RealKnockout (talk) 20:35, 2 July 2021 (UTC)