Talk:Greenhouse gas emissions by Turkey/Archive 1

At least a C, may be eligible for GA
Appears to be at least a C. Oliveleaf4 (talk) 03:52, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Content good/images bad
I reckon the content of this article is GA material, however the image formatting really detracts from it. If the images were re-formatted then I reckon this could easily be a GA. - OliverEastwood (talk) 03:48, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for that comment. Could you explain in more detail about the image formatting please? I like rectangular graphics like this but I have no graphic skills. Chidgk1 (talk) 13:34, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, so for the main body of the article, 2 of the first images (GHG emissions and absorption in 2016, Greenhouse gas emissions by Turkey in 2016) are positioned on the page in a way that really breaks up the text, making that section a bit hard to read. The first image (2016 greenhouse gas emissions by source) is way too large and takes up the page, displacing the lead section. I reckon it should be resized and moved to make the opening section more readable. Hopefully this makes sense - I can have a play around if you'd like? - OliverEastwood (talk) 22:58, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Re the main (top) image: it looks fine on my phone (I can read the text without having to tap the image) but you are right it is far too large on a laptop screen. If you could attempt to make it look good on both that would be great.Chidgk1 (talk) 06:09, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

That was quick! Yes main image still looks good on my phone and also now good on my Chromebook thanks. Re the emission and adsorption image it needs to be changed because as far as I can tell the "graph" utility is not available on Turkish Wikipedia. If you have ideas and time please go ahead. Re the bar box maybe it should just be removed as confusing to new readers - what do you think? Chidgk1 (talk) 06:44, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

I think what I'll do is to try and convert the graph into an image then upload it that may - just makes it easier for editing and makes it more cross-platform. In terms of the bar box, I think it's fine to stay (this is already a pretty technical article, so readers who are on here will probably understand it if that's the sort of info they're looking for). I'll try different alignments of that on the page so it just fits into the text more. - OliverEastwood (talk) 07:39, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

How about this as a replacement for the emission and absorption chart? - https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Turkish_GHG_emission_and_absorption_in_2016.png - OliverEastwood (talk) 07:57, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

New emission and absorption chart looks great. Can you explain how you did it as I will need to repeat the process with Turkish text? Also I will need to repeat it after 15th April when 2017 figures are released. Suggest the absorption color is changed to green as it is almost all trees. Is it better to have the file type png or svg? Chidgk1 (talk) 09:12, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

I just used Google Sheets' chart function to make it. Here's the file if that helps: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1xHegRPENDJLf8YAKiXC15pKfFBoc5PtiafarDw64S_U/edit#gid=0. I can definitely change the colours, and will reupload the pic. In terms of file type, I think png would be better (just more like a static image). - OliverEastwood (talk) 09:29, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks a lot. I have tried to explain what you just told me as a general method in the description for the pic on the right:. Next I will create one for each language but will only put the country and language name in the file name. The year I will only put in the image not the name. That way a new version can be made each year and will automatically go in the article I think. Chidgk1 (talk) 11:07, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

For now I will also make a simple pie chart with Google charts but as a long term aspiration is a rectangular chart or pie with outer circle or something else the absolute best do you think?

Structure of the article?
I am thinking of changing the structure so most of the sections follow the first pie chart so:

Mitigation of transport
etc

Maybe there should also be a "how calculated" subsection for each slice of the pie chart?

Any thoughts? Chidgk1 (talk) 16:09, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Use page numbers for long sources?
Hi there! I took a look this article after seeing it linked on the Wikiproject. I'm not competent enough at this moment to do the GA review, but I'll probably do some minor editing and make a few suggestions. One is this: For the sentence, "Turkey's 2030 target is for an increase in emissions compared to the 2010s," in the 2030s target section, there are two citations. However, the citations are for very, very long PDFs.

It would be very nice if you could add page numbers when referencing long articles like this. You might want to refer to this if you're unsure how to do this, and I myself usually use the rp template. Jlevi (talk) 14:35, 23 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Added thanks. If you or anyone else spot more page numbers missing please let me know by tagging the place with . Chidgk1 (talk) 09:02, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Per capita emissions and energy emissions forecasting
Hi - thanks for your edits. In the lead it says "six and a half tonnes per person" which is just read off the graph in the source. I guess the report for 2018 due to the UNFCCC this April will not show much change in NET total emissions. Once the report comes out we can just divide the NET total by the 2018 population.

I don't know the detail of "Current policies scenario" that New Climate Institute used to forecast 5.7 to 7.9 in 2030. I guess the forecast would be quite sensitive to how much the government increased or decreased the current coal subsidy this decade. But I could be wrong so if there are any experts reading this who understand how Turkey is using the TIMES-MACRO model for projections for energy consumption please comment.Chidgk1 (talk) 13:53, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Readability of graphics
Hello - I just wondered why you reset a couple of graphics to be thumbnails? I find the text a little hard to read on my laptop. Perhaps your eyesight is better than mine - I will check again after I get new glasses in a few weeks time.Chidgk1 (talk) 16:30, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
 * hi - sorry I missed this question. I was trying to format the article to follow general style guidelines from the Manual of Style, where images are set as thumbnails and right-justified to make the text more readable and scalable on mobile devices (readers can click on the images to make them bigger). One thing that could be done is making them images *somewhat* smaller and right-justified? Or at least justified? I find having them full size in the text is rather jarring as it breaks up the flow of the text. -- phoebe / (talk to me) 16:59, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Hello - thanks for that link - I now understand I should use "upright" as well as "thumb". Hopefully it looks better now.Chidgk1 (talk) 17:33, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

WikiProjects
You added geology but is that a typo - did you mean geography? Chidgk1 (talk) 15:55, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

The main article greenhous gas has been added to WikiProject Geology, but not to WikiProject Geography. I simply added the missing WikiProject. Dimadick (talk) 15:57, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

New source
Four reports at https://www.cobenefits.info/resources/industrial-development-trade-opportunities-and-innovation-with-renewable-energy-in-turkey/ need to be added if relevant to this and related articlesChidgk1 (talk) 19:16, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Original research?
Hello ,

I am a bit confused. Could you explain why "An article from Anadolu Agency stated that a new regulation restricting plastic bags had prevented thousands of tons of GHG emissions in 2019, but did not mention in the article that the national total is measured in hundreds of millions of tons." might be original research.

Is it just that I need to cite that "the national total is measured in hundreds of millions of tons" or is it that I have combined it with the earlier fact to imply that AA is greenwashing whereas I have to cite someone else saying that they are greenwashing in order to leave the sentence in the article?Chidgk1 (talk) 06:18, 19 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Hey !
 * Thanks for asking for clarification. Yeah, the main problem is that facts are being combined to reach a novel conclusion (take a look at WP:SYNTH for more details, and feel free to ask if anything there is confusing). Even if you have two articles that include the very different levels of emissions described, this would not be enough for Wikipedia. You need an article that actually discusses how this difference means that AA is greenwashing. Without it, the Wikipedia community considers it original research, since the conclusions are not in the articles cited.
 * Jlevi (talk) 16:41, 19 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Hey ! I added a few more original research tags that I suggest you address as I start my review. It is possible I am just not finding where the article statements are proven in the sources, which would make fixing this easy (just add the page numbers). Please let me know if you have any questions. Jlevi (talk) 13:46, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Referencing
Once page number citing is available in Visual editor consider using that https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:WMDE_Technical_Wishes/Book_referencing because page number cites are so confusing for new editors — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chidgk1 (talk • contribs) 11:20, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Cites which may be useful in future



 * — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chidgk1 (talk • contribs) 09:01, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Possible sources
Possible future sources: https://spectrum.ieee.org/energywise/energy/fossil-fuels/how-to-track-the-emissions-of-every-power-plant-on-the-planet-from-space

https://www.climatetrace.org/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.163.92.242 (talk) 16:32, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Which could then be uploaded https://m.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Dataset_Imports — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.163.92.242 (talk) 16:44, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

G20 leaders statement
They said "Signatories to the Paris Agreement who confirmed at Osaka their determination to implement it, ...." but I don't know if that includes Turkey as I don't know what Turkey said at Osaka so have not cited https://www.consilium.europa.eu/media/46883/g20-riyadh-summit-leaders-declaration_en.pdf. Chidgk1 (talk) 14:30, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Moved from climate change in Turkey article - need to decide where to put it
==Politics== According to the Eleventh Development Plan (2019-2023): "It is seen that climate change accelerating due to high greenhouse gas emissions causes natural disasters and poses a serious threat to humanity." and "International climate change negotiations will be conducted within the framework of the Intended National Contribution with the principles of common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities, and within the scope of national conditions, climate change will be tackled in sectors causing greenhouse gas emissions and the resilience of the economy and society to climate risks will be increased by capacity building for adaptation to climate change." the chief climate change envoy is Mehmet Emin Birpınar, a Deputy Minister of Environment.

Turkey, like neighbouring Iran, is one of the few countries that has signed but not ratified the Paris Agreement, in other words it is a signatory but not one of the parties to the agreement. The main opposition Republican People's Party has called for the agreement to be ratified. Other countries are likely to press Turkey at the 2021 G20 and climate change summits.

Similarly Turkey has signed but not ratified the Kigali Amendment to reduce production and use of hydroflourocarbons. It has no carbon tax or emissions trading scheme, therefore carbon capture and storage is not used as it is not economically viable. Also "given the fact that a new coal-fired power plant has a minimum of 40 years of economic life, Turkey's coal rush could create an inextricable carbon lock-in."

In 2020 first lady Emine Erdoğan said that “Every wrong step we take can be a disaster for future generations,”.


 * Note: I have moved that back into the article Climate change in Turkey EMsmile (talk) 01:22, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Keep the overview of the politics section in the other article
Regarding the section on "politics" above: if we agree that the parent article is Climate change in Turkey then it ought to have some information about politics on climate change (including on mitigation) THERE and then point to further details (if we have them) in THIS article. People need to be able to get an overview on all aspects about climate change in Turkey from the overview article and then only come here for further details. We still need to fine tune the standard structure in that respect. So I don't agree with having all this info on politics here and nothing anymore at Climate change in Turkey. EMsmile (talk) 00:30, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I have made this change myself now. EMsmile (talk) 01:23, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
 * OK I have put Climate change in Turkey in the queue for GA review so I will leave the politics where you have put it for now and we will see if the reviewer makes any comment one way or the other. Someone else did the anchors but don't worry about them - unless there is any obvious problem I will get around to learning about anchors some time. Chidgk1 (talk) 07:08, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Structure of this article?
I have just moved some of the general politics information to the article Climate change in Turkey as per our discussions that Climate change in Turkey should be the parent article and this one the sub-article. I am a bit worried that I might have caused problems with those anchors though. I have to confess I didn't really understand how the anchors were used in the article. Is that so that wikilinks still work even if the section heading is changed? Please double check. Also I think we should look again at the structure of this article and see if we can change some of the headings to more standard headings; I find particularly towards the end of the article it has too many Level-1 headings and it becomes a section of "miscellaneous things". EMsmile (talk) 01:41, 12 February 2021 (UTC)


 * OK I will take a look - hopefully tomorrow - feel free to chase me if I have not replied or changed anything in the next few days. Chidgk1 (talk) 07:14, 12 February 2021 (UTC)


 * I had a look and I see your point about there being too many level-1 headings at the end. But I am not sure how to improve the structure - do you have a specific suggestion? Chidgk1 (talk) 13:18, 17 February 2021 (UTC)


 * "Local actions" can just be folded into "Politics" (it's local politics/policy). "Trends, research and data access" can be incorporated as a subsection of "Economics", and there is some redundant text between the two that can be combined. My main structural concern would be the proliferation of subheaders, with many applying to just a single short paragraph. CMD (talk) 13:32, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Do we still need the anchors?
Thanks again for your copyedit. I don't really understand the purpose of the anchors. Perhaps they were meant to be temporary and I can now remove them? Chidgk1 (talk) 13:14, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Anchors help with incoming links, Special:WhatLinksHere/Greenhouse gas emissions by Turkey. The top link, Economy of Turkey, links to Greenhouse gas emissions by Turkey which no longer exists without the anchor. CMD (talk) 14:23, 17 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Ah thanks I think I understand the purpose of anchors now. But the manual of style says "The page from which the hyperlink is activated is called the anchor; the page the link points to is called the target." so is that wrong? Chidgk1 (talk) 08:20, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Such a semantics issue is better asked at MOS, I'm not sure what the correct answer is. That page does recommend the Anchor template lower down. CMD (talk) 09:01, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Are these Turkish sources reliable please?
http://www.elbistaninsesi.com

https://www.enerjiekonomisi.com

https://sepev.org

http://www.yesillojistikciler.com

https://marmara.gov.tr

https://iklim.csb.gov.tr

http://www.diken.com.tr

https://www.k-cep.org

https://www.egetv.com.tr

http://eced.csb.gov.tr

http://www.sp.gov.tr

Hurriyet

Foundation for Political, Economic and Social Research


 * Government sites (.gov.tr) for stats should be reliable? Hurriyet is a newspaper, so be careful with newspaper sources per WP:Reliable sources (commentary attributable to authors only unless it's news or they are quoting experts etc). Some are less-known news websites, not sure how reliable they are (eg: ). About other websites and NGOs, I'm not sure. Bogazicili (talk) 11:21, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Lead rewritten - old version below
I have rewritten the lead (without cites) in the hope that people who don't have much time can get the gist more easily and quickly. The old version is below in case we need to copy any of it (with cites) into the body of the text.

Greenhouse gas emissions by Turkey are mainly carbon dioxide from burning coal, oil and natural gas. Coal is primarily used in the nation's power stations. Oil is refined and fuels almost all Turkey's cars, trucks, and planes. Natural gas heats buildings and generates electricity. Growing forests capture some, but not nearly as much as is being discharged. Turkey emits about 500 million tonnes (Mt) of human-made greenhouse gas (GhG) every year, which is around one percent of the world's total. The main influence on greenhouse gas emissions is the government through national policy on energy, construction, transport, and agriculture.

Far less methane and nitrous oxide is emitted, but they are more potent as greenhouse gases than carbon dioxide. Methane escapes from some coal mines and is belched by cattle. Nitrous oxide is given off by manure and fertilised soil. Whereas carbon dioxide emissions stay in the atmosphere for centuries, methane is broken down in years and nitrous oxide in decades. Yet across a 100-year period, a release of methane or nitrous oxide still contributes much more to global warming than would an equal amount of carbon dioxide.

Coal, cars, cows, and construction emitted about half of Turkey's gross GhG of 520 million tons (Mt) of carbon dioxide equivalent (e) in 2018. About 100 Mt was reabsorbed by forests. Turkey emits about one percent of the world's total GhG, averaging over six tonnes per person, which is about the global per-person average. The burning of fossil fuels for electricity, heat and transport made up over 70 percent of the country's 2019 GhG; industry and agriculture were over 10 percent each. Forests, including reforestation, absorbed about 20 percent of the 2018 total emissions. Coal accounts for the largest part of Turkey's fossil-fuel  emissions; it is used to generate electricity, for heating and by industry. Next are petroleum products derived from oil, which are used for transport. The third largest source of emissions is natural gas, used for heating and electricity generation.

Although climate change in Turkey is forecast to severely impact future generations, the independent research organization Climate Action Tracker has called the country's plans to limit emissions "critically insufficient". Turkey has signed, but not ratified, global agreements on reducing GhG emissions. The country has not yet ratified the Kigali Accord to regulate hydrofluorocarbons, and is one of the few countries that have not ratified the Paris agreement on climate change. Major reasons for Turkey's high rate of emissions include subsidies for coal-fired power stations, and the lack of a price on carbon pollution. Emissions increased rapidly during the late 20th and early 21st centuries, although Turkey increased investment in energy efficiency and its renewable resources during the 2010s and 2020s.
 * Looks much better now for getting a quick overview. It's a bonus that you've taken the cites out of the lede. And the triple alliteration with 'Coal, cows & cars' is a nice flourish, though possibly the very first sentence could be more functional. While your change is a strong improvement in several respects, IMO the lede as it stands is not fully compliant with FA criteria including 1a & 2a. Do you plan on taking this back to FA & if so would you like me to have a go tweaking the lede to FA standard, which I could do while retaining the new style form your recent edit? FeydHuxtable (talk) 08:38, 15 April 2021 (UTC)