Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Greenhouse gas emissions by Turkey/archive3

Greenhouse gas emissions by Turkey

 * Chidgk1: Chidgk1 (talk) 11:48, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

This article is about climate changing gases from a mid-sized country. Thanks to an FA mentor it has been changed a lot since I last submitted it here. I understand that not everyone has time to read the whole article. But even if you just pick one section and make one comment that would be great. Although it may not get to FA before COP26 starts in a couple of weeks anything we can improve may help. Even now some aide could be reading it as a starting point for writing a page of A4 to brief a minister. Chidgk1 (talk) 11:48, 5 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Whoever is doing the source review should be especially careful as this article cited the garbage source EU Reporter until I removed it a few weeks ago. I also see excessive capitalization ("Just Transition", "International Politics", etc.) (t &#183; c)  buidhe  12:12, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Fixed capitals (if anyone sees any more feel free to change yourself if easier than telling me) but could not find "etc." - if there is there some general rule of style I missed let me know. As I think you are familiar with the country would you have time to do a source review? Chidgk1 (talk) 14:45, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Oppose. I don't think the prose is FA standard yet. Can we get an independent copy-edit? The article suffers from proseline with lots of stubby factoids. There are grammatical problems; I sensed missing articles ("a" and "the") and I saw at least one example of a fused participle in the Lead. Have all the points raised in the previous FACs been addressed? And I see there is an abundance of helpful advice on the article's Talk Page. Has this advice been followed up? The nomination seems premature. Graham Beards (talk) 12:57, 5 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Are you referring to "vehicles running on petrol" - perhaps I should explicitly say that the article is written in British English in which that grammar is fine. There may well be missing articles in the quotes if they have been poorly translated by a native speaker as Turkish lacks articles - I think adding "sic" is unnecessary but can do so if you wish. Yes it was copyedited twice and points raised in previous FACs and on talk page addressed. Which sections are suffering from proseline or stubby factoids please? Chidgk1 (talk) 14:31, 5 October 2021 (UTC)


 * I am sorry but I don't think the copyedits have been 100% successful. Here's an edited version of the first two paragraphs of the Lead, which will illustrate the problems:

Current version: Greenhouse gas emissions in Turkey are dominated by a few sources: coal fired power plants, cars and cows produce about half of the country's five hundred million tonnes of CO2e per year.[a] Mostly carbon dioxide, along with some methane, these Turkish emissions contribute to the current climate change.[b]

The largest portion of carbon dioxide is from burning local and imported coal in the nation's coal-fired power stations. Exhaust from vehicles running on petrol or diesel is another significant source of GHG emissions, and also pollutes city air. The third most relevant fuel is fossil gas, which is burnt in Turkey's gas-fired power stations, homes and workplaces. As for methane emissions, most are from agriculture in the country, generally from livestock, with cows alone producing half of Turkey's agricultural greenhouse gas.

Edited version:

Greenhouse gas emissions in Turkey are dominated by coal-fired power plants, cars and cattle. These produce about half of the country's five hundred million tonnes of emissions—mainly carbon dioxide  and methane—each year. These emissions contribute to climate change.

Most of the carbon dioxide comes from burning locally mined and imported coal in power stations. Another significant source is the exhaust from vehicles running on petrol or diesel. The third most relevant source of carbon dioxide is fossil gas, which is burnt in Turkey's gas-fired power stations, homes and workplaces. Most methane emissions come from agriculture  particularly livestock;  cows alone produce half of Turkey's agricultural greenhouse gas.

Proseline is a problem throughout the article. Graham Beards (talk) 15:23, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
 * @Chidgk: WP:REDEX is a good starting point for learning to make improvements like Graham's. It has exercises. FemkeMilene (talk) 16:49, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Yes you are right there were some problems with the lead - probably not from the copyeditor but more likely introduced by myself or other editors since the copyedit. I have redone it using some of your suggested text. Can you tell me which sections have the worst proseline? Chidgk1 (talk) 18:16, 5 October 2021 (UTC)


 * You have added an error here "another significant source is vehicles running on petrol or diesel".  I don't think it will be helpful to say where the "worst" of the problems are. You need to find a competent copyeditior who has the time to spend on the article.  I think you are bringing the article back to FAC too quickly,  before it is ready.  For now I suggest you remove all the references and footnotes from the Lead.  If all the information is also covered in the Body, as it should be, they are not needed. It is traditional to  define the subject of the article in the opening sentence, this has been lost in the latest edit. With regard to translations, you cannot argue that the definite and indefinite articles have been omitted because Turkish doesn't use them unless you are quoting someone else's translation, in which case quotation marks, a citation (and perhaps  [sic] ) are needed. Graham Beards (talk) 19:20, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

There is too much work needed for this nomination to remain at FAC. I suggest the nomination is withdrawn and the article worked on away from the pressure and intense scrutiny. The nominator might wish to benefit from reviewing other candidates  and gaining a deeper understanding of FA requirements. Graham Beards (talk) 12:28, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Femke
 * I'm sad to see the phrase 'climate change in Turkey' reappear in the first sentence. It does not help define the scope of the article, it makes the sentence too long, and turkeys contribution to CC is too small to warrant mention.FemkeMilene (talk) 21:30, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
 * The structure requires attention. Why is mitigation a separate section to emission control plans? FemkeMilene (talk) 21:32, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Done Chidgk1 (talk) 12:07, 6 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Not all the notes are cited. One has the word 'presumably', which is a form of editorialising. One links to a Wikipedia MOS entry (that sentence can be removed). The first note comes close to OR / is OR, and needs copyediting. FemkeMilene (talk) 21:42, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
 * may be rather than presumably is still OR, best to remove entire footnote. FemkeMilene (talk) 13:28, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I think I mentioned misspelled in a previous review. Fn106 lacks the subscript. Is there a consistent citation style? I'm seeing rp and sfn used both for page numbers. FemkeMilene (talk) 21:48, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Done Chidgk1 (talk) 12:07, 6 October 2021 (UTC)


 * On a third FAC attempt, I expect source formatting to be consistent and complete. Still seeing missing information, like a date for FN39. FemkeMilene (talk) 11:12, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
 * FN5 does not seem to support the sentence. I can't find mention of coal subsidies in the source (phone may be to blame). Also, countries without coal subsidies and with carbon pricing still have greenhouse gas emissions, so I doubt the sentence is true. FemkeMilene (talk) 11:38, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Not your phone - sorry to send you on a wild goose chase - I thought the coal subsidies was so much of a consensus among economists it did not need citing, but as I am about to add the new IMF report to cite gas subsidies I will add that here too. Added a quote re carbon pricing but as far as I know no economist would dispute this. Although non-economists might well dispute it - that is why Clayoquot asked me to add other mitigation options to the lead which I did. A far as I know the economists are not saying that carbon pricing will get rid of all emissions. That is why the sentence says "major reasons" not the only reasons.
 * The source says it's a reason emissions aren't going down. It does not support its the cause of the emissions. FemkeMilene (talk) 12:40, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Well I agree the original economic causes back a few years were different - for example gas had not yet been discovered in the Black Sea and wind and solar was much more expensive when many of the coal plants were built and the subsidies started. I am trying to use the sentence to describe the present situation as the history may be a bit too detailed for the lead. Anyway Graham Beards is right I need to move the cites down into the body so when I do that I will duplicate the lead sentence and try and expand it as a body sentence a bit to clarify it. This is such a clear consensus among economists I won't have any problem finding plenty more cites for the body if needed perhaps with more explicit wording. Chidgk1 (talk) 14:17, 6 October 2021 (UTC)


 * The fossil fuel section starts with a quote. I don't think PR speech from the government is relevant. If included, it should not be in such a prominent location. FemkeMilene (talk) 11:47, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Moved to less prominent place


 * Captions that are sentence fragments should not have a full stop, full sentences should (noticed two mistakes).
 * The last paragraph of the lede has a WP:SEAOFBLUE
 * Make sure you use one spelling variant. I see European and American English (subsidised and subsidized). Choose one. FemkeMilene (talk) 12:09, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

I think this nomination came too soon after the previous. I suggest the article is withdrawn, and the nominator participate in reviewing other articles to learn more about what is expected in an FA. The FAC process is always a bit short on reviewers, so it's important articles come fully prepared. FemkeMilene (talk) 11:56, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Pretty certain I won't be coming back to the FAC process after this attempt - neither as nominator nor reviewer. So tactically you might be better off stringing me along with a couple of comments each week in the hope I do some reviewing whilst I am here. If you still think I should withdraw the article I will likely instead take a look at bringing the closely related articles Coal power in Turkey and Electricity sector in Turkey up to good standard. Because spotting my own mistakes at FA level is just too difficult. Anyway thanks to both of you for your comments on the article so far and I welcome more, as even though I don't intend to submit it again it should be easy for me to fix the issues you point out. Chidgk1 (talk) 16:28, 6 October 2021 (UTC)


 * That's a shame to hear, but there is no shame in it. Writing FAs is bloody difficult. I think the article has improved significantly over time. Tactically, I want more users writing and reviewing GAs, as I believe they form the backbone of Wikipedia. I hope that, like me, striving towards FA will have taught a few important things that help you with your opus of GAs. Forget about the perfect source formatting, and perfect adherence to MOS, but do remember WP:REDEX and avoiding short sections and paragraphs. Femke (talk) 09:24, 8 October 2021 (UTC)


 * I agree entirely with Femke's wise words. Not achieving FA does not mean the article is fatally flawed, non-encyclopaedic or not worth reading. Quite the opposite is the case here. The article is a valuable contribution to Wikipedia, and one of which you can rightly be proud. Graham Beards (talk) 09:54, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

OK I hereby withdraw it - hope to go through the remaining comments and if have further questions about them will ask on talk page of article Chidgk1 (talk) 11:45, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

Ian Rose (talk) 14:09, 8 October 2021 (UTC)