Wikipedia:Peer review/Greenhouse gas emissions by Turkey/archive3

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 it is obvious that Turkey will ratify the Paris Agreement soon, so when that is in the news hopefully people will read this article or its Turkish equivalent.

All suggestions welcome but in particular on 1) improving the overall flow (i.e. storytelling) and perhaps structure 2) stuff which is obviously not "featured" standard 3) source review of Turkish sources listed on talk page.

Since the previous FAC I have removed some dubious sources and improved the diagrams.

Thanks, Chidgk1 (talk) 17:13, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Aseleste

From Wikipedia:Peer review/Edward Hewitt Nichols/archive1.

~~Pending...~~ ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 18:51, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The most obvious things to fix are the broken references. The article is in Category:Pages with reference errors, Category:Pages with broken reference names, Category:Harv and Sfn no-target errors, and Category:CS1 errors: missing periodical. Try to get the article out of these categories first.

I think I have fixed all these - if not please let me know.Chidgk1 (talk) 11:19, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have gone ahead and fixed the remaining one Category:CS1 errors: missing periodical error for you: Special:Diff/1018255337. It looks like this problem has been

Resolved. ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 02:18, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You should standardize the citation style as the article right now is mixing short citations and full citations. See WP:CITESTYLE.

I think the long term aim should be to have all the cites done with Visual Editor because that will make it easier for future editors to keep the article updated. Because Turkey is very unlikely to get to net zero emissions in my lifetime and I hope editors will keep the article up to date for many years until the country does. I think new editors are unlikely to want to learn how to do cites with the source editor. My problem is that at the moment, as far as I know, the visual editor cannot cope very well with a lot of cites to the same document (such as the national inventory report I just added with 2019 data) with different pages. But as far as I know that feature is being considered for the visual editor (https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WMDE_Technical_Wishes/Book_referencing) If you or anyone has an idea about whether and if so how I should change the cites in the short-term please could you explain as I am not very expert about cites. Chidgk1 (talk) 07:25, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like you want to use full citations. For book citations, you could use {{Rp}} to specify pages for now until m:WMDE Technical Wishes/Book referencing is implemented. It works like this:

This is a sentence.^[1]^{: 123–127} This is another sentence.^[1]^: 267

~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 02:38, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I see thank you this is so much easier than the fiddly harv refs (except for the spreadsheet). And they should be easy to change to VE when page numbers available there. I will gradually get rid of all the harvs in favour of rp. NOTE TO SELF - TO DO Chidgk1 (talk) 06:23, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It would be ideal to specify the variant of English used with templates in Category:Use English templates.

English language schools here teach more than one variety so I really don't think this is necessary unless pedants start edit warring, in which case I would specify a variety. Chidgk1 (talk) 07:25, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The language taught at local schools hardly matters for specifying the variant of English used in the article. Consistency is important in FA so I have suggested specifying it, but I will not force it on you. ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 02:29, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The lead may need changes. The part about how cows and cars produce greenhouse gases is too generic (i.e. the content can be put into leads of other "Greenhouse gas emissions by XXX" article and still make sense) and thus cannot adequately summarizes the actual content in the article. Try to make the lead focus on the relationship between greenhouse gas emission and the country. There are obvious major omissions from the lead like economics and politics. You may also want to highlight some controversies in the lead (the politics section is the most likely place you find them).

There is already one sentence about economics in the lead: "Cows are subsidised, but the biggest driver of Turkey's GhG is subsidies for coal-fired power stations and the lack of a price on carbon pollution." Yes the part about how cows and cars produce greenhouse gases is generic but on the other hand it saves the reader who does not know from having to detour to the greenhouse gas emissions article. I would like more opinions on this - do other people think I should cut the generic stuff or keep it?

Added Paris still not ratified.Chidgk1 (talk) 15:38, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You may want to request another copy edit again considering there have been substantial changes.

I will try and fix some prose myself first then consider this. Chidgk1 (talk) 07:25, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

These are my general comments. If you want me to look into specific areas, ask. ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 02:30, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ ^a ^b Example Book. Example Publisher.

Hi Chidgk1, it's been over a month since the last comment in this PR. Are you interested in keeping this open? Z1720 (talk) 21:42, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes if it is not a problem please keep it open as I have done a fair number of small changes. Not sure when I will get to the end of my small fixes but when I do I intend to write a bit more here. But if it is an admin hassle to keep open please close and I will hopefully open another later. Chidgk1 (talk) 06:12, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello HJ, hope you are well, it's been a while but might you still be available to help improve the flow and storytelling of this article? Of course any further comments from others on all aspects welcome (I know I have not finished standardizing cite style). Chidgk1 (talk) 10:46, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Femke

I just did some edits to make sure that the article complies better with the manual of style.

I put the first sentence keyword bolding back in because I think it helps the reader - but no doubt if I ever get this to FAC there will be plenty of comments on the first sentence. Chidgk1 (talk) 06:37, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FAC is really nitpicky with respect to citation formatting. I'm noticing many articles are missing the author information. FN265 is missing almost all information. The emission gap report misses location. Some info that should be under the work/website parameter are instead in the title (like | UNFCCC).

fixed titles, added isbn rather than location, 265 fixed - authors added

You seem to be using the abbreviation GhG for greenhouse gas emissions instead of how you define it in the lead.

Amended lead - well spotted

The Paris Agreement is misunderstood by some media This seems WP:SYNTH.

Removed the sentence. Hopefully readers can draw their own conclusions from the rest of the paragraph.

Overall, I think the article will benefit from another copyedit.

Requested

and Good Party: does this require an article?

Oh I see you mean a grammatical article - added "the"

electricity generated from lignite is often described by politicians and the media as generated from "local resources" and added to the renewables percentage. I don't see anything about politicians in the first source cited after the sentence.

cited president in 2021

Any update on this? asked 33 states to respond by May 2021? FemkeMilene (talk) 16:08, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Can't find any info on whether Turkey has responded or not but added cite to page which might be updated with developments

[book-1] Example Book. Example Publisher.

[1]