Wikipedia:Peer review/Greenhouse gas emissions by Turkey/archive2

Greenhouse gas emissions by Turkey

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion is closed.

I've listed this article for peer review because…

@SandyGeorgia: has suggestions and this gives it some publicity in the hope that others weigh it.

In particular but not limited to: What needs to be done to get this to FA standard? As there is already a greenhouse gas article maybe the lead does not need to explain what greenhouse gases are but only link to the article? How to make the article more understandable to a high school graduate?

You don't need to write polished sentences - brief notes will do

Thanks, Chidgk1 (talk) 06:48, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Chidgk1 why did you list this under Geography at peer review? Don't you think it might attract more feedback if it were listed under, eg, sciences? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:29, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there is much science in it yet - hopefully I will be able to add more soil science once their survey is completed and results published. I think the quantity of ghg emitted depends mostly on politics.

NOTE, when you close this peer review, please be sure to remove it from Template:FAC peer review sidebar. If FA regulars have to do all the maintenance, they may stop following that very useful sidebar :) Good luck, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:46, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

SG

Simplifying prose is not my strength, but once we work through some other issues, I will try to convince others to engage to read. My general suggestions for FAC readiness are here.

The article is cluttered by an excess of images, mostly packed in to one section. The construction industry picture is not aiding my understanding, and the natural gas plant might also be removed, unless these can be relocated somewhere else. Images should not overwhelm the text.

Removed Chidgk1 (talk) 08:34, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

On the graphs as images, there should be citations in the image caption.

See WP:LAYOUT (search for Portal); the two portals should be added to a portal bar and placed below the navigational templates.

I guess you mean right at the bottom. Done. Chidgk1 (talk) 08:34, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Table of Contents is considerable: I suggest using the template, TOCLIMIT|3, and also moving one of the graphs out of the lead and in to the text. Or using one of the images in the lead, and moving both graphs out. The top of the article is just not aestetically appealing.

Done Chidgk1 (talk) 08:34, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest shortening these: 5.1 Potential cost-benefits of carbon pricing and ratifying the Paris Agreement and 6.1 Paris Agreement and transboundary environmental impact treaties not ratified ... they seem to be arguing a case.

The External links are considerable; you will need to justify at FAC why they are all needed, as FAs are supposed to be already comprehensive.

All of the citations need work. In some cases, although there are authors, they are not identified. All websites need accessdates (books and journal sources do not, as they are static and don't change). Some publishers are missing. (Sample: Aşıcı, Ahmet A. (May 2017). Climate Friendly Green Economic Policies. doi:10.13140/RG.2.2.25029.14562.) Sometimes publishers are re-identified as authors. How are the sources organized? They don't seem to be alphabetical, and I can detect no scheme.

There are multiple citeref errors:

Fourth biennial report (2019), pp. 10,11. Harv error: link from CITEREFFourth_biennial_report2019 doesn't point to any citation.
Tech review, third report (2019), p. 15. Harv error: link from CITEREFTech_review,_third_report2019 doesn't point to any citation.
Fourth biennial report (2019), p. 33. Harv error: link from CITEREFFourth_biennial_report2019 doesn't point to any citation.
Tech review, seventh communication (2019), p. 23. Harv error: link from CITEREFTech_review,_seventh_communication2019 doesn't point to any citation.
Tech review, seventh communication (2019), p. 20. Harv error: link from CITEREFTech_review,_seventh_communication2019 doesn't point to any citation
Report on the technical review of the third biennial report of Turkey (PDF). UNFCCC (Report). June 2019. Harv warning: There is no link pointing to this citation. The anchor is named CITEREFTech_review_3rd_report2019.

There are page number issues, for example, Aşıcı (2017), pp. 32. should be p. in contrast to Inventory review (2020), p. 31,32,33. which should be pp.

There are faulty WP:HYPHENs that should be WP:ENDASHes, Tech review seventh communication (2019), pp. 27-28. (I will run a script that should get most of them, but you will need to check.)

There is a failure to use named refs for repeat citations, eg (and why are these two, same, citations noted differently, that is, the comma?)

Tech review seventh communication (2019), p. 23.
Tech review, seventh communication (2019), p. 23.

And so on ... considerable citation cleanup is needed.

Must we do this? Could you implement an et al scheme to your citations? For example, many publications use the first six et al, others use the first three et al. If you choose one of those, make it consistent throughout.

Friedlingstein, Pierre; Jones, Matthew W.; O'Sullivan, Michael; Andrew, Robbie M.; Hauck, Judith; Peters, Glen P.; Peters, Wouter; Pongratz, Julia; Sitch, Stephen; Le Quéré, Corinne; Bakker, Dorothee C. E.; Canadell, Josep G.; Ciais, Philippe; Jackson, Robert B.; Anthoni, Peter; Barbero, Leticia; Bastos, Ana; Bastrikov, Vladislav; Becker, Meike; Bopp, Laurent; Buitenhuis, Erik; Chandra, Naveen; Chevallier, Frédéric; Chini, Louise P.; Currie, Kim I.; Feely, Richard A.; Gehlen, Marion; Gilfillan, Dennis; Gkritzalis, Thanos; Goll, Daniel S.; Gruber, Nicolas; Gutekunst, Sören; Harris, Ian; Haverd, Vanessa; Houghton, Richard A.; Hurtt, George; Ilyina, Tatiana; Jain, Atul K.; Joetzjer, Emilie; Kaplan, Jed O.; Kato, Etsushi; Klein Goldewijk, Kees; Korsbakken, Jan Ivar; Landschützer, Peter; Lauvset, Siv K.; Lefèvre, Nathalie; Lenton, Andrew; Lienert, Sebastian; Lombardozzi, Danica; Marland, Gregg; McGuire, Patrick C.; Melton, Joe R.; Metzl, Nicolas; Munro, David R.; Nabel, Julia E. M. S.; Nakaoka, Shin-Ichiro; Neill, Craig; Omar, Abdirahman M.; Ono, Tsuneo; Peregon, Anna; Pierrot, Denis; Poulter, Benjamin; Rehder, Gregor; Resplandy, Laure; Robertson, Eddy; Rödenbeck, Christian; Séférian, Roland; Schwinger, Jörg; Smith, Naomi; Tans, Pieter P.; Tian, Hanqin; Tilbrook, Bronte; Tubiello, Francesco N.; van der Werf, Guido R.; Wiltshire, Andrew J.; Zaehle, Sönke

For the cites I would like to use the automatic cite function of the visual editor as much as possible because that should make it easier for editors who come after me don't you think? The only reason I attempted the "harv" format was because I could not see how to tidily do different page numbers of the same source with the visual editor. I very much doubt Turkey will be carbon neutral within my lifetime - so if I manage to get the article featured I am hoping that eventually someone else will maintain it at that quality. I will ponder the Visual editor to see if it has been improved lately to replace some of my manual mistakes on harv style, and perhaps raise a change request re "et al". If you or others have suggestions of how I can make cites easy for future editors please let me know. Chidgk1 (talk) 08:34, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Chidgk1, you should sign all of your entries here, or we will end up with a jumble if other editors engage. I don't believe you have more than two citations that have more than six authors. You can decide to use a citation style that truncates more than six to et al even if you stick with the visual editor. You can change just that one citation manually; it has quite a dreadful (in terms of space taken up) number of authors. All you have to do is put a parameter, display-authors= 6, manually, in that one citation template. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:56, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The "Action plans" section is stubby; can that content not be merged somewhere else? Or more said about them here?

The acronym GHG should be defined in the lead; it is used extensively throughout the article.

Done Chidgk1 (talk) 08:34, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:ENDASH According to the Eleventh Development Plan (2019-2023), ... again, I will run a script that should catch most of these, but you should learn to distinguish WP:HYPHEN v WP:ENDASH v WP:EMDASH. The script doesn't always catch all of them.

Unless Turkey's energy policy[16] is changed, unclear why the citation can't be placed after the comma.

Done Chidgk1 (talk) 08:34, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is overquoting; an FA should use our own words as much as possible, sample:

According to the Eleventh Development Plan (2019–2023), "Within the framework of Intended National Contribution, activities for emission control will be carried out in greenhouse gas emitting buildings, energy, industry, transportation, waste, agriculture and forestry sectors."[11] In 2015, Turkey submitted its emissions target to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), "up to 21 percent reduction in [greenhouse gas (GHG)] emissions from the Business as Usual level by 2030" and aiming to emit 929 Mt of CO2 (before subtracting CO2 absorbed by forests) in 2030.[12] However, such an increase during the 2021–2030 implementation period (see graph) would emit over 10 tonnes per person in 2030.[13] The national strategy and action plan only partially covers short-term mitigation,[14] and the OECD has recommended that climate change mitigation efforts be increased.[15]

That same passage suggest some ways to make the article more readable.

Turkey's Eleventh Development Plan was written in xxxx and calls for emissions to be addressed in the "building, energy, industry, transportation, waste, agriculture and forestry sectors". The plan aims to reduce GHG by 21 percent and to emit 929 Mt of CO2 (before subtracting CO2 absorbed by forests) by 2030. Turkey submitted its emissions target to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) in 2015. The national strategy and action plan only partially covers short-term mitigation, and the OECD has recommended that climate change mitigation efforts be increased. Under this plan, Turkey would emit over 10 tonnes per person in 2030.

Overuse of however, also in that same passage.

Stopping for now, more later. I think for now the article is aesthetically messy, hence, off-putting. If you can clean up a lot of that, it will be easier to get some serious prose people engaged. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:35, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Another sample of prose simplification:

Current: With a population of 83 million, Turkey's annual per-person emissions are about the world average (over six tonnes) and need to be reduced to meet the global carbon budget. The government's Turkish Statistical Institute (Turkstat) follows Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) guidelines and uses production-based greenhouse gas emissions accounting to compile the country's emission inventory, which is submitted to the UNFCCC each April (about 15 months after the end of the reported year). Consumption-based emissions are estimated by the Global Carbon Project to have been 470 Mt of CO2eq in 2017.

Contributing to difficult prose is a combination of numbers, acronyms, parenthetical insertions, long sentences and scientific terms. Lowering any one of those will help. Think of splitting sentences in ways that make each piece more digestible. (I have not checked sources to see if any of this is accurate to the source-- just focusing on the prose and ways you can rewrite for accessibility.)

Proposed sample: The Turkish Statistical Institute (Turkstat) follows Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) guidelines and uses production-based greenhouse gas emissions accounting to compile the country's emission inventory. It is submitted to the UNFCCC each April—about 15 months after the end of the reported year. Turkey's emissions are over six tonnes per person each year for its 83 million people and are similar to the world average. This is too high to meet the global carbon budget. Consumption-based emissions are estimated by the Global Carbon Project to have been 470 Mt of CO2eq in 2017.

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:47, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes very good prose simplification thanks - I will go through the article and attempt to simplify like that. Chidgk1 (talk) 08:34, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am going to unwatch now, as there is plenty of good feedback here. Please ping me if any clarification is needed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:46, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Aoba47

I have never worked on an article like this before, but I want to help as much as I can. Hopefully, since I am very much a non-expert on this, I can bring a different perspective and insure that this article is accessible to unfamiliar readers like myself. I am putting this up as a placeholder, but if I do not post any comments by the end of Monday, then please ping me as a reminder. Aoba47 (talk) 20:47, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Are you using the serial comma for this article? In the lead, there is an instance with it (Coal, cars, cows, and construction) and another instance without it (national energy policy, construction, transport and agriculture).

Ah so that is what you call an Oxford comma. I put one after "transport" as that seems to read better - feel free to put more in yourself but not sure it needs to be consistent across the article. I didn't go to Oxford University so I am able to punt from either end of the boat! Chidgk1 (talk) 12:22, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have noticed a few one-paragraph sections and subsections. For instance, the "Action plans" has only one sentence. I would like to ask SandyGeorgia's opinion on this. I've been told in the past to avoid short sections/subsections. Aoba47 (talk) 07:20, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I also noted that above. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:34, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have tagged that for expansion to remind me to try and find more info on that - if there are others which you think are still too short please let me know. Chidgk1 (talk) 12:32, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Since the first paragraph of the lead introduces the acronym for greenhouse gases, should the rest of the lead use the acronym instead of fully spelling it out?

Changed Chidgk1 (talk) 13:20, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This part, (With a population of 83 million, Turkey's annual per-person emissions), is not grammatically correct since if it is read literally, "With a population of 83 million" is connected with "annual per-person emissions" and not Turkey. Aoba47 (talk) 07:28, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I noted that one as well. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:34, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for the double posts on both of these. I must admit that I did not thoroughly read your comments prior to posting mine. My above comments are just quick things that I noticed from a quick skim of the article, but I plan on printing it out today so I can sit down and read through it more thoroughly. Aoba47 (talk) 18:40, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

tweaked wording - if not better please let me know Chidgk1 (talk) 13:20, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

SG has already pointed this, but there are inconsistencies with the acronyms. For instance, in the body of the article, you use the acronym for million tons in the "2030 target" section, and then later on in the "Cement" subsection, you spell out million tons without the acronym. I think it would best to spell out the acronym on the first use, put the acronym directly after it in parenthesis, and then only use the acronym for the rest of the article.

Done those. Some might argue that I should leave "greenhouse gas" in some places instead of "GHG" in case readers jump in at a section. I don't have a strong opinion so have changed quite a lot to "GHG". Let me know if you think I should change more or less to the "GHG" abbrev or just change yourself if you prefer. Chidgk1 (talk) 13:20, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies in advance, as I am likely being incredibly dense about this, but for this part, (Although climate change in Turkey is forecast to impact severely), do you have to qualify what it will impact severely? I was a little confused when I first read this sentence.

Not at all - this is exactly the kind of first time reader comment I need as I have no chance of spotting it myself. From the first sentence of the source it is clear that they are talking about impacts on future generations of people (rather than for example being too hot for trees to reforest). But as the source has no "executive summary" I cannot yet understand whether they are talking about, for example, the severe impact being on people's health (e.g. wildfires) or prosperity (e.g. farmers or people who own waterside property) or both or something else. So I hope it is enough that I just add "on future generations" and pass the buck to future editors of climate change in Turkey, which is the main article for impacts. Chidgk1 (talk) 14:07, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'd change this part, (the country's plans to limit emissions have been called "critically insufficient" by the independent research organization Climate Action Tracker), to something like, (the independent research organization Climate Action Tracker called the country's plans to limit emissions "critically insufficient"). It is relatively minor change, but I've been told to avoid passive tense when possible. Just wanted to raise that to your attention

Done Chidgk1 (talk) 14:07, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Would it be beneficial to spell out the OECD acronym in the article?

Not sure about this. Maybe instead I should write after a comma like https://www.economist.com/the-economist-explains/2017/07/05/what-is-the-oecd "a club of rich countries". Any opinion SandyGeorgia? Chidgk1 (talk) 13:51, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I want to emphasize that I have never worked on a science article. My primary focus in entertainment subject matters so this is very outside of my comfort zones. I noticed that measures like kWH and TJ are used without an explanation or a wikilink. Is that common for this kind of article? Would it be beneficial to include links for kWH and TJ or would that be considered over-linking or a science article?

They should definitely be linked - thanks for spotting - linked. The article should be understandable by the man on the Clapham omnibus, who is now sensibly staying home and idly clicking the "random article" link. If you are that man or know him please tell me what else needs clarifying. Chidgk1 (talk) 14:07, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is probably a silly suggestion, but I'd recommend putting (EU) after European Union in this part, (European Union emissions per person are). I think a majority of readers understand what EU stands for, but I think it is helpful to clarify what the acronym is since it is used later in the same section. Also should it be "The European Union" since a later sentence says "the EU"?

Putting "(EU)" is a good suggestion but I think we don't need "the" as I am using it as an adjective (perhaps American English is different).

Would it be possible to reword this image caption, (Pollution over Ankara. Coal is still burnt to heat older buildings in cities.), to avoid having a sentence fragment in the beginning with a period?

It is not ideal but I am struggling to think of better wording. If you or anyone has better please change it.Chidgk1 (talk) 14:28, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be curious on SG's opinion for this part, (Although the special consumption tax^(Turkish)), specifically the link to the Turkish Wikipedia. I've not run across an example of this so I'd be curious if this is a standard practice and would be acceptable in a FAC? Aoba47 (talk) 22:25, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. It is incorrectly formatted, but it is OK (indeed, desirable) to use ILL (interlanguage links) when the English Wikipedia article does not yet exist. Template:Interlanguage link takes the place of a red link, and once the English article is written, is substituted (by a bot maybe?). Rather than hard-coding the sup tags, it should simply use the ILL template:

Turkish special consumption tax [tr] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:39, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the clarification. Aoba47 (talk) 04:24, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@SandyGeorgia: I see you don't like pings but I want to keep discussion in one place so Aoba47 can easily see the answer too. I don't think the special consumption tax is notable enough to have an English article so I am reluctant to make a redlink because I think it would distract some readers. The very few who really want to know can use Google Translate. So will it be Ok to leave that as it is for an FA? Chidgk1 (talk) 13:33, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not to worry about the ping.

FAs must comply with WP:WIAFA, which includes 2, Manual of Style. MOS:UNDERLINK is part of the Manual of Style. But when it comes to red links, that MOS page references WP:RED which is not part of MOS, rather only an editing guideline. Experienced editors expect and endorse WP:RED because redlinks help build the encyclopedia, and most don't object to seeing them. Are redlinks to notable topics required for an FA? This risk on that interpretation is yours ... MOS links to a page that is not part of MOS ... someone could object at FAC, or not. I recommend using red links because they serve our readers, but I can't say definitively that anyone would object if you don't. Basically, anyone who is interested in such a narrow Turkish topic is likely to go read the Turkish article anyway, and may even complete the red link. But the choice is yours.

Also, if you think it's not notable, that's a whole 'nother story ... WP:RED applies to notable articles not yet created. In either case, it shouldn't be linked in sup tags as was pointed out by Aoba47. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:24, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Femke

I have commented on the text before and I see that it is already much improved, and you're getting loads of help. I'd like to give some commentary on the figures that you have produced for the article. All figures could do with slightly larger titles. Femke Nijsse (talk) 14:55, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

feedback for four figures

This figure can be taken as an example. All the text is readable and the colours are modern. You might want to consider cutting off more of the whitespace. Furthermore, you can cut even more whitespace if you put road transport on two lines.
The word megatons should be bigger, there should be a space or an enter between the words in the X-axis. Maybe the whitespace between the two parts can be decreased.
The colours are currently not great, especially the bright yellow. An immediate improvement would be to use a comparable colour scheme as your first figure. On the X axis, use alternative years so that the remaining gears can be displayed sufficiently big to be readable. Maybe only display one in three years.
Similar: use alternate years to make sure there is not too much clutter.

Note to self: also make line graph of the 4 gases from 1990 in CO2eq with largest lowest ie CO2 CH4 N2O Fgases Chidgk1 (talk) 18:46, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]