Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Greenhouse gas emissions by Turkey/archive1

Greenhouse gas emissions by Turkey

 * Nominator(s): Chidgk1 (talk) 06:54, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

This article is mostly about carbon dioxide, although it should also cover methane thoroughly and mention the other greenhouse gases. It should thoroughly cover the politics of climate change and economics of climate change and avoid too much overlap with Climate change in Turkey. I suspect it is a very long way from featured standard yet, but I am hoping you will give me lots of constructive feedback on what to improve which I hope to be able to do quickly and then you can comment more. One reason this is important is that I am guessing Turkey will soon ratify the Paris Agreement and then people such as journalists and activists will be interested in what the country's Nationally Determined Contribution to limiting global greenhouse gases should be. so this article ought to be a sound foundation for the debate. Chidgk1 (talk) 06:54, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Peer review/Greenhouse gas emissions by Turkey/archive2. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  02:07, 23 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Right off the bat I can say for sure that the references section needs major cleanup. Many news articles don't have an author, post date, and/or access date listed. There are many refs like: which is just a step up from bare url. The article also cites preprints and MDPI, a sketchy open access publisher and heavily relies on official sources and Turkish state media. Considerable work may be needed to meet the high-quality sourcing requirement. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  08:04, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks - hope to work through these in next few days and come back to you with questions Chidgk1 (talk) 08:14, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I have not started on "References" yet but is the "Sources" section OK now I have made some fixes to that? Chidgk1 (talk) 11:02, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't edit science topics that much so I wouldn't be comfortable attempting a full source review. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  11:23, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
 * There is not much science in the article. If anyone finds any science (or anything else) in the article they don't understand that means I have not explained it properly so please slap it with a "clarify" tag. Chidgk1 (talk) 15:05, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Oppose by Femke

Thanks for working so hard on these articles. I'm afraid I'll have to oppose in the current state. Overall, it reads like a string of facts, instead of a well-rounded article, but with my prose skills I can't help much there. Many of the scientific details are not quite correct, so let me help there.


 * Absolutely - am struggling with flow/storytelling so hoping that might have time to give me a few ideas on that. Chidgk1 (talk) 07:37, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm happy to help with prose/story-telling. It's one of the things I enjoy most about writing articles. I won't be around much until the middle of next week, but that should give you time to address the other points. HJ Mitchell &#124; Penny for your thoughts? 19:07, 11 March 2021 (UTC)


 * the sources are still not cleaned completely. Template:Cite report should typically be used for sources that lack a ISBN. As an example: Energy pricing and non-market flows in Turkey’s energy sector does have a ISBN.
 * I have just noticed now that there is Template:Cite techreport which allows isbn - so I will change some of the cites to that Chidgk1 (talk) 12:44, 10 March 2021 (UTC)


 * There are too many external links
 * Have taken out a few. There are 15 now. I could remove more - what would you guys say would be a maximum for a featured article? Chidgk1 (talk) 13:45, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Do they all comply with External links? I'm sceptical of any article more than 5 to 10 external links. FemkeMilene (talk) 17:05, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Reduced to 3 Chidgk1 (talk) 07:27, 11 March 2021 (UTC)


 * I'm sad to see the first sentence back to sub-optimal prose. I think the previous version (GHG .. by Turkey are about 1% of the world's total or something) was better.
 * Hmm - you are probably right it is not the best. But on the other hand I am not sure the previous version was better. If I understand right it is not obligatory to bold the title. Instead "greenhouse gas" and "Turkey" could be linked. Also rather than giving a % of the world total it would seem fairer to emphasize that per person it is about the world average. So how about something like "Turkey's greenhouse gas emissions are average per-person and are mainly carbon dioxide from burning coal, oil and natural gas." Could reviewers who are less familiar with the subject comment on the first sentence too please. Chidgk1 (talk) 14:33, 10 March 2021 (UTC)


 * I've never seen the abbreviation GhG instead of GHG
 * I got the idea from page 59 of this OECD report and I think it is more readable than GHG Chidgk1 (talk) 14:33, 10 March 2021 (UTC)


 * I've never seen the eq in CO2eq in subscript.
 * Ah now you mention I notice it is inconsistent in that sometimes I have subscripted both the "2" and the "eq" and sometimes only "2". I just had a look at Global warming potential and I see there they mostly use e. So I am changing to follow that standard as it seems the most readable. Chidgk1 (talk) 14:33, 10 March 2021 (UTC)


 * The Paris goal is not below 2, but well below 2 degrees
 * corrected Chidgk1 (talk) 15:29, 10 March 2021 (UTC)


 * When economic growth resumes after Turkey's late 2010s and COVID-19 recessions, it will be possible to expand the country's renewable-energy potential and invest in energy efficiency with a sustainable energy policy -> Doesn't follow; a lot of sustainable energy investment is done during the crisis during periods of recession.
 * amended - but please could somebody reread the first paragraph of the economics section to see if it is clear now Chidgk1 (talk) 15:39, 10 March 2021 (UTC)


 * renewable-energy potential -> The potential stays the same per definition, the capacity increases.
 * corrected Chidgk1 (talk) 15:39, 10 March 2021 (UTC)


 * The economics focusses very heavily on monetary policy; what about demand-pull and demand-push policies (f.i. producement and other softer instruments)? Only one sentence mentioned under the Fossil fuel subsidies section (which isn't a subsidy)
 * Added info from the OECD report linked above but not sure I understand all your points here ("producement" maybe a typo but for what?). The OECD seems to be saying that exempting petcoke from a tax counts as a subsidy. As there are arguments over the definition of a subsidy in other countries (e.g. UK less VAT on electricity than gas) discussion of that perhaps belongs in an article which is not country specific - such as Economics_of_climate_change_mitigation. More comments from you or anyone else on the economics welcome. Chidgk1 (talk) 11:47, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Procurement, sorry. Other economic policies that are not tax or subsidies include regulation on efficiency, banning of certain industries (coal moratorium is populair), white certificates, building codes and so forth (this paper has a cool global overview). It may be that all studies focus on fiscal policy (not monetary..), as a lot of integrated assessment models don't have the capacity to simulate the full economy. If it hasn't been done, that's fine too. People studying these types of policies (which includes me), would say that omitting those policies is not a neutral way to explain economic policy options. FemkeMilene (talk) 19:28, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
 * When I wrote to one researcher a while ago she told me there were no integrated assessment models for Turkey including so much stuff at that time. But I think the decarbonization study by Shura due to be published later this year will likely include an IAM with a lot of what you mention. Meanwhile I will add some bits and pieces from a new IEA report. Chidgk1 (talk) 06:39, 12 March 2021 (UTC)


 * The economics section focusses a lot on GDP; what about employment.
 * added OECD jobs recommendation to the "buildings" section Chidgk1 (talk) 12:04, 11 March 2021 (UTC)


 * The next heading with ratifying Paris doesn't talk about ratifying Paris; it talks about global investment in occordance with Paris.
 * The heading is maybe not the best but I am not quite sure what you are suggesting. I have not found any quantitative forecasts yet on the economic impact of the EU carbon tariff. As the main quantified economic benefit seems to be savings in the fossil fuel import bill perhaps I should emphasise that more? Chidgk1 (talk) 12:45, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
 * You could change it to 'Carbon pricing'. FemkeMilene (talk) 19:51, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Done Chidgk1 (talk) 06:28, 12 March 2021 (UTC)


 * According to Climate Transparency to take a fair share to achieve 1.5°C Turkey would need to reduce to 365 Mt CO2e by 2030, 226 Mt CO2e by 2050 and net zero by 2070 -> Prose. Commas are needed, be consistent in your unit for CO2 equivalent (CO2e / CO2eq are both valid I believe)
 * corrected Chidgk1 (talk) 12:45, 11 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Make sure to mind hyphens in phases like: gasoline fuelled SUVs
 * corrected Chidgk1 (talk) 12:45, 11 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Rich people emitting more doesn't have much to do with cost-benefit analysis or Paris
 * moved to "politics" section but if anyone thinks a different place is better please suggest Chidgk1 (talk) 12:45, 11 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Antalya, Bornova, Bursa, Çankaya, Eskişehir Tepebaşı, Gaziantep, İzmir, Kadikoy, Maltepe, Nilüfer and Seferihisar have Sustainable Energy (and Climate) plans.[229] One sentence in a paragraph. Why capitalisation?
 * corrected Chidgk1 (talk) 12:56, 11 March 2021 (UTC)


 * but there are some restrictions restrictions in what? Legislation? Emissions?
 * clarified Chidgk1 (talk) 12:56, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

FemkeMilene (talk) 22:51, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Continued
 * While the figures denote historical emissions, the text seems to be quiet about it. Wouldn't it be logical to have historical emissions as the first section?
 * The text does give a total for historical emissions. Have now linked to Deforestation during the Roman period but I have not found any quantification of GhG from historical deforestation so don't know if it has been properly accounted for - so as far as I know most emissions were 21st century (7 out of the 10 billion tonnes total from a rough glance at the graph). For an article about a country where there is a lot of history and emissions are now declining fast - like Greenhouse gas emissions by the United Kingdom having the history first would make sense. But here where most emissions are very recent I think it would give undue weight to the history to have it first. But maybe I should add more history into the "trends" section which is lower down? Chidgk1 (talk) 07:31, 19 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Figure captions: full stops after full sentences
 * Done Chidgk1 (talk) 07:56, 19 March 2021 (UTC)


 * First figure of the body: the years are difficult to read. Could you only print every five years? And increase font size of the title?
 * Done (you might need to clear your browser cache) Chidgk1 (talk) 07:58, 19 March 2021 (UTC)


 * .. to inform the government if it decides .. This sort of reads like the report decides whether the government makes that decision
 * Reworded Chidgk1 (talk) 08:04, 19 March 2021 (UTC)


 * FN28 doesn't mention Turkey. Do we know whether Turkey exports cement to the EU? A lot of cement is produced close to destination
 * Surprisingly a lot is exported - see cement section - but no stats on where to - replaced cite with one which does mention Turkey - as our steel is mostly from electric arc furnaces I think the new cite is referring to our cement Chidgk1 (talk) 09:17, 19 March 2021 (UTC)


 * 83 million people -> Don't start sentence with number. Everything before colon can be deleted
 * Done Chidgk1 (talk) 09:44, 19 March 2021 (UTC)


 * The anadulo agency source is tagged by headbombs script as 'reliability depends on contributor'. Are they reliable? You use them quite a bit. That script is amazing, so if you don't have it, install it.
 * Yes very useful script - I have it. According to the reliable sources list Anadolu Agency is unreliable for controversial topics. I don't think any of the things I have cited them for is controversial, but if anyone has any concerns let me know which cite(s) and I will try and replace. Chidgk1 (talk) 09:44, 19 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Subsections for things like industry lead to very small subsections. You can drop them.
 * Am deleting subheadings for some other short subsections but am inclined to leave "industry" as it is very likely to get bigger in future. Chidgk1 (talk) 08:55, 22 March 2021 (UTC)


 * CCS is not financially viable, however, because Turkey has no carbon pricing. -> source
 * Fixed Chidgk1 (talk) 10:50, 19 March 2021 (UTC)


 * No city councils have yet created low-emission zones, -> source from 2019. Should this be singular? No city council has
 * Fixed Chidgk1 (talk) 12:02, 19 March 2021 (UTC)


 * dashes need looking over WP:DASH
 * Fixed by script Chidgk1 (talk) 12:02, 19 March 2021 (UTC)


 * In 2021 US climate change envoy John Kerry said that top 20 should reduce emissions immediately. -> grammar
 * Fixed Chidgk1 (talk) 09:40, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

I think the article is quite far from the FA criteria. I suggest withdrawing, improving the sourcing, asking for a copy-edit, and then starting another peer review. I'll be willing to help in another peer review :).
 * I agree with you it is quite far from FA. And thanks for offering to help with another peer review. But my concern is not to overload you with stuff which any of the FA reviewers could do. If I understand the FA process right then hopefully someone will do something called a "source review"? I was trying to persuade and others that this would not need scientific knowledge, because for the scientific papers I have generally just used the abstracts - which are written in easy to understand language - and not delved into any detailed science. There is only one source I can think of which might require a deep dive but even that needs nothing more than high school science and math - that is the Turkstat spreadsheets of 2019 GhG which will be published in 2 or 3 weeks time - to make sure that my reslicing of the data contains no mistakes or "original research". So  or anyone else - any chance of doing a source review omitting the spreadsheets (as they will be out of date soon)? I think the best use of your time  would be checking my use of those 2019 stats after they are published. For now, as you have a wide overview of climate change, I hope you would be able to say whether I have completely overlooked any aspects or given some aspects more or less weight then they ought to have (for example I say little on geothermal as I am waiting for more research on Turkish geothermal CO2 - but maybe that is a mistake). My concern is that if I withdraw this in favor of a peer review that you will be the only reviewer and end up doing lots of detail work which any experienced Wikipedian could do. Whereas if I leave it here others might comment more? Does that tactic of leaving it here make sense? Chidgk1 (talk) 07:23, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
 * According to the rules, you are only supposed to nominate for FAC if the article already meets the criteria or is very close. You are not supposed to use FAC for peer review. However, I sympathize, as it can be quite difficult to get feedback on your writing. I think the article could benefit from requesting a copyedit from Guild of Copyeditors but maybe you want to sort out any sourcing issues first. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  07:36, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I have been snooping around and I see you are thinking of doing source reviews - any chance? Chidgk1 (talk) 12:58, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't speak Turkish, so I wouldn't be able to assess the non-English sources. Hog Farm Talk 23:59, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
 * That's fine. Almost all of the sources are in English so you could just omit the Turkish ones and I will try to find someone else to source check them. Alternatively if you want to attempt them Google Translate is pretty good Turkish to English nowadays (and I can translate any quotes) and if any Turkish sources look shaky I can search harder for English versions. Chidgk1 (talk) 05:47, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Image review
 * Some of the captions have neutrality issues - eg "There is hope".
 * amended a couple of captions - if there are any more you think are not neutral please let me know Chidgk1 (talk) 07:00, 14 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Others need citation, eg "one of the few major European cities without a low-emission zone"
 * cited that one - I think any others without cites are either obvious or cited in the text or in the image itself - but if more caption cites are needed please let me know Chidgk1 (talk) 07:00, 14 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Suggest scaling up the reforestation image
 * Done Chidgk1 (talk) 07:00, 14 March 2021 (UTC)


 * What is the source of the data presented in File:Greenhouse_gas_emission_and_absorption_by_Turkey.svg? Ditto File:Fossil_fuel_CO2_Turkey.svg
 * The reason I put the source links in the charts themselves is so that people who google for images can see the source link without having to find this article. I will redo the pie chart when 2019 data is published in a few weeks time and incorporate the source link in the image. Should I also add cites in the captions? Chidgk1 (talk) 07:00, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I'd suggest adding to the image description pages. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:01, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Done Chidgk1 (talk) 14:56, 15 March 2021 (UTC)


 * File:Zonguldak_port_and_breakwater,_Turkey_Ottoman_era_postcard.jpg: source link is dead, when and where was this first published?
 * The Ottoman era ended in 1922 - if that is not sufficient info let me know and I will remove it from the article Chidgk1 (talk) 07:01, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Are there sources supporting the "Ottoman era" claim? Nikkimaria (talk) 15:01, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
 * It was not important for this article so I removed it and have added a different Zonguldak picture Chidgk1 (talk) 14:49, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Comment by FeydHuxtable

Thanks so much for taking the time to bring this vital topic to such a high standard. While already better than much audited content IMO, it would benefit from a little more polish. Some of the sentences are a little too long; the longer the sentence, the harder to understand. In places, the reader might have got the wrong impression. E.g. where it said that methane and N2O are more potent than CO2 "in the short-term", that might have implied they are less of a problem in the medium term. Whereas in fact, even on a 100 year time scale, both those gases are over 20x as potent for causing warming. I fixed a few minor issues I saw along these lines, but there lots more to improve. It would be especially good to see the 'Politics' section sharpened a bit, it's not something I understand well enough to usefully re-word myself. Is Turkey sees industrialized Western countries as solely responsible definitely an accurate reflection of the Ümit & Seçil source? My understand is that even as far back as Copenhagen, middle income & developing countries considered the rapid increase in emissions by China as a major contribution to GW & sometimes gave it as a reason not to commit to costly mitigation efforts themselves. Would it be possible to change "solely" > "mainly"? Will keep checking back every few weeks, as would love to support a promotion here! FeydHuxtable (talk) 14:25, 17 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Thanks for copyedit. I completely agree with you that politics is extremely important and that section needs improving - so I will try to polish. Not having any contacts in politics it is hard for me to understand too what is going on in the depths of the government. I am sure it is not one of their top priorities at the moment, but from the changing media coverage over the past few months I am hopeful that Paris might be ratified this year. I will modify as I suspect the government attitude has changed since Ümit's view 2 years ago. Probably due to Black Sea gas discovery they will favor coal less now I guess. Chidgk1 (talk) 15:06, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I liked the improvements you made to the politics section. At the top after you quote Article 56, it might be good to indicate the key opposing force(s).  E.g., something like  "However, many in Turkey see fossil fuels as central to continued economic growth, especially in the absence of substantial assistance for a green transition from more established advanced economies." FeydHuxtable (talk) 08:43, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Good point. Have added "However, until the discovery of gas under the Black Sea in the early 2020s, many in Turkey saw burning local lignite as essential to lessen the high gas import bill. Likewise, until local production of solar panels, electric vehicles and lithium mining began around the same time, it was hard for governments to avoid burning a lot of petroleum." If anyone can improve that please do. Chidgk1 (talk) 06:19, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

How to improve the structure of the article? I am not entirely happy with the current structure but am struggling with how to improve it. The style guide does not seem to cover some important sections such as "politics". Any suggestions? Chidgk1 (talk) 08:55, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
 * The currents structure's quite good, all the changes I'd suggest are debateable. But FWIW, heres my suggestions. 1) Change 'Latest carbon dioxide estimates and forecasts' so it's about GHG in general not just CO2, or move 'Greenhouse gas source' up so it becomes the first section. (As good to have the first section being something that relates to the article topic in the widest sense.)  2  Move 'Plans & targets' under Mitigation. 3 Move Politics above Mitigation  - in a sense, politics drives everything. (Or if you keep Economics above Politics, it would be nice to see more on how the economics are constraining the pro enviroment political choices.  4) Drop 'Trends'  from 'Trends, research and data access'.
 * The way you restructured the Politics section is great. Maybe a different structure would better help the reader as the content changes, but for now it seems optimal. 'Politics' could still do with content improvement though, if possible. It would be fascinating to understand the reason for Turkey's  "critically insufficient" designation given that it has stronger reasons than most countries to move towards clean energy (fossil fuel imports accounting for ~70% of its current account deficit;  not wanting energy dependency on Russia despite the good Erdoğan / Putin relationship; more exposed to -ve GW effects than many; high unemployment that could be alleviated by RE construction projects,  etc.) Maybe it's mostly the funding & logistical challenges of outpacing growing demand, despite energy efficiency improvements. But would be good to have that confirmned by sources. Still that's more of a nice to have, I'd not say you need that level of depth for FA class. FeydHuxtable (talk) 14:44, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for all that - will ponder and hopefully get some done tomorrow - you are right politics v important - probably was constrained by economics until very recently but with fall in price of gas and renewables lots more options. I suspect until now politicians had too much else to think about and climate change was not even in their top 20 priorities so they ignored it. Now maybe priority number 10 perhaps - due to drought and international pressure. By the way the changes you just made are excellent, but don't be surprised if I move the adaptation stuff to Climate change in Turkey. The only reason I put about Kurum and adaptation was as an illustration of the lack of co-ord with Energy Min. In general the climate change wikiproject decided that adaptation belongs in the "Climate change in country X" articles. Chidgk1 (talk) 17:53, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
 * You're most welcome. Just one last thing point on the "Dönmez favors coal, but Kurum is planning for adaptation" juxtaposition that was in an earlier version of the article. Maybe it makes sense to see coal use & adaptation as opposed from a local perspective, and certainly it does in some US circles. But from a global view, there's much less of a contradiction than there was a couple of years ago, before the almost complete collapse of outright climate denialism. Excessive focus on adaptation increasingly goes hand in hand with continued fossil fuel use. Michael Mann has a whole section on "Adaptation & Resilience" in chapter 7 of The New Climate War (Though he does say that some degree of adaptation is essential, & too be clear I'm not trying to imply that Kurums focus is excessive). Newer surveys are showing that the main reason folk are giving for not supporting mitigation measures is no longer skepticism, but doomism. All that said, I'd agree with moving out the mention of adaptation. Generally I don't mind if you revert any of my changes. You're the one whos put loads of effort into developing this vital topic. Hope to see this back at FAC before too long. FeydHuxtable (talk) 08:23, 23 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose and suggest withdrawal; articles are expected to appear at FAC having addressed previous concerns, and many of the problems being raised here (eg lack of consistent citations) were covered in the peer review, but not yet addressed. I join two other editors (Buidhe and Femkemilene) in suggesting that this article needs more work before it is FAC ready. It is important to work through issues raised at PR and solicit further feedback on FAC readiness before nominating at FAC.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  02:12, 23 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Withdraw Ah OK sorry I had not realised there was stuff in the peer review I had not dealt with. I hereby withdraw and will resubmit when I have dealt with both the peer review comments and those raised here. Thank you to everyone here for your very useful comments. Chidgk1 (talk) 06:20, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Ian Rose (talk) 12:02, 23 March 2021 (UTC)