Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Greenhouse gas emissions by Turkey/archive2

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 7 September 2021 [1].

Greenhouse gas emissions by Turkey edit

Nominator(s): Chidgk1 (talk) 09:51, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Following the withdrawal of my first attempt the article has been copyedited again as suggested - thanks Twofingered Typist. I have made some other fixes and remaining errors are my own. I suspect there are many, but the only way I have even a small chance of getting this done before the big COP26 climate change meeting starts at the beginning of November is for you guys to point them out here and me to fix them straight away. Otherwise I will be distracted by other articles. Less than 10% of the sources are foreign language and if they cite anything which seems contentious to you let me know so I can try to find an English language cite. All the graphs except one were done by me so if anything needs improving on them I probably can do it. If there are tools I should be using to make your work easier let me know. And if you prefer to fix minor errors yourself or tag bomb the article please do so if easier than commenting here. I think it would be good if more than one climate change article was featured for COP26 and this is the only "Greenhouse gas emissions by country X" article which is anywhere close as far as I know. Thank you for your time. Chidgk1 (talk) 09:51, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Brief query edit

Good question: answer is to read better by having an equal number of syllables - see Isocolon Chidgk1 (talk) 06:20, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from Feyd edit

Normally I'd not like to see a 2nd nom so soon after the first one. But I agree it would be nice to have a FA in the topic class in time for Glasgow, and first impression is the articles improved significantly since last time. Also agree it's fine to use Cow rather than cattle, unless more experienced editors like Cas strongly object. By chance I've been doing some off wiki work involving methane hunting & 'Cows for climate' this past few weeks. On some pages we exclusively use the word 'Cows'. Cow's perhaps a cooler sounding word than cattle to the contemporary ear.

This said Chidgk1, while 'rule of three' is powerful & mostly simple, it's not a short cut for great writing. (Best way to learn is maybe to spend near equal time polishing your own writing as reading top quality work so the elements of good style sink in - e.g. FAs by our best writers or see this for an excellent example on a relevant subject. ) To highlight an overuse of 'rule of three' that IMO needs to be fixed before we can promote this to FA, there's your first 3 L2 headings, all with 3 words. The problem is "Scope and methodology" causes a jarring context switch as the content is all about reporting. The switch from Turkey's GHG emissions in general to reporting on same wasn't introduced. You could have had a L2 heading saying 'Reporting', & then an L3 heading saying 'Scope and methodology' under that. Better still just change "Scope and methodology" > 'Reporting', although that spoils your 3x3. So maybe just change "Scope and methodology" > 'Reporting and methodology' (Which isn't perfect, just the best I can come up with right now.

The lede needs some editing, which I might take care of myself on my next pass, if no one else does. But to give an example, the first sentence of the lede is too long. At least on the first para of the lede, it's good to have extra emphases on readability. (This tool I got from Collect is great). The opening para would be better as 3 sentences, not a 40 word mini monster. Other than the lede & the mentioned "Reporting" issue, the article is looking much better. Hoping to be back on the weekend where I should have some time to look at this more carefully, & maybe even cast a support vote.FeydHuxtable (talk) 09:17, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Changed L2 headings as suggested. Yes if you or anyone else could edit the lede that would be wonderful. Chidgk1 (talk) 09:58, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Femke edit

Going to mostly sit this one out, as I'm recovering from illness. Climate change is due another go on the front page, don't worry about the COP. Sustainable energy might also reach FA status on time.

Wise decision - thanks for comments - hope you get well soon. Personally I like to reread childrens books when unwell - all the Biggles I enjoyed as a boy is now on ereader. Chidgk1 (talk) 18:26, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think it would be good if the lead is slightly expanded to 3 complete paragraphs
Yes I hope Feyd or someone else may revamp it Chidgk1 (talk) 18:26, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • it is a bit weird to say that turkeys emissions are causing climate change in Turkey, given that they are only 1% of global emissions
I thought someone would raise this and I would like more thoughts on this from others. I pondered this for a while. I think one possible analogy would be money - if I contribute 10 lira towards a 100 lira cake which is sliced equally in ten it does not mean that my particular 10 lira note bought a particular slice - any slice will do. In the same way one CO2 molecule is the same as another regardless of which country it came from. Earlier I wrote that Turkey's GhG caused most of its climate change - because it has 1% of the world population and emitted 0.6% of cumulative GhG. But then I thought that was a synthesis too far as although warming is linear by CO2 climate change is not. I think my wording now that Turkey's GhG caused part of its climate change is not undue weight, as it would be for some countries which hardly burnt any coal. Because if all countries had behaved like Turkey although climate change would be less it would still be significant I think. Chidgk1 (talk) 18:26, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Assuming no one else has re-writes the lede before I get to it, I was already planning to remove the "causing climate change in Turkey" wording . Mainly as for well developed articles, the lede generally ought not say things not mentioned in the body. You might think this qualifies under the "basic facts" exception in WP:MOSLEAD, per your good argument above, and especially now you've added a "partly". Here's the thing though. The relationship between burning coal & global warming isn't as simple as many think. Some scientists don't like to draw attention to this for political reasons, but between ourselves, it should be ok. Burning coal is always a net warmer across many decades, due to the long persistence of CO2. Yet on a short enough timescale, burning coal can actually have a strong net cooling effect. (Depending on the nature of the coal being used, the tech in the power stations, the type of sulphate aerosols being produced, etc etc. There some reference to this even in the new IPPC report.) On a medium time scale, the warming & cooling effects could even balance out. This isn't something I'd want to discuss in detail, but hopefully this is enough for you. From my quick read so far, the article seems admirably free of OR. It would be a shame to be let down by the lede. All that said, not something I feel that strongly about, just commenting per your request. FeydHuxtable (talk) 23:11, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You are correct that local air pollution can limit warming and I had forgotten to mention that general point in the body, but I am not sure the magnitude and timescale in this country. In 2020 new power station flue stack regulation came into force. So it may be the clearer/cleaner air will increase the local warming. Or pessimistically our air may not clear properly until well after local EV and natural gas production ramps up and replaces coal and gasoline and diesel. But I doubt there are any studies on this here yet. So until I find one or clarify the point in some other way (for example completely conclusive studies on climate change in Turkey and the very recent wildfires and floods here) yes ok remove from lead. Chidgk1 (talk) 05:56, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Great work on picking out what's probably the single most relvent quote for this, from what's arguably the best possible source (AR6). Very few could have done that so swiftly. But sorry, I think your new "Relationship to air pollution" section is spoiling the otherwise excellence coherance of the article. Under that title I'd expect to mostly see things more widely associated with pollution - e.g. the short term -ve effects of coal burning on air quality, acid rain, etc. Even with a different title, I'm not sure it's good to say too much about the warming / cooling balance. As mentioned, some scientists don't like to see it discussed publically. We should cover it of course, but maybe just in the most germane articles like Global cooling. FeydHuxtable (talk) 07:43, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oh I did not expect you to be awake so early in your time zone. Anyway your comment has stimulated me to learn some interesting info - I had no idea there was an article on Stratospheric sulfur aerosols. I think the relationship between climate change and "conventional" pollution is very important in this country - the difficulty is to decide where to put the info without too much duplication across articles. Not just the scientific relationship but also the political: for example local opposition to new coal-fired power stations in the past has tended to focus on claimed pollution of the surrounding agricultural land - "climate change" was not much of a political topic until this years fires and floods. If you really think it does not fit I could relegate the new section to a footnote (or move to another Turkey article but which?) but I would be very reluctant to delete it. Chidgk1 (talk) 08:09, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Quite common for Londoners to be awake by 6am, the city that never sleeps and all that. You make good points. IMO you could move the entire new passage to Coal_in_Turkey#Air_pollution , which seems a very nice little GA. Said section already has the pollution basics, it would be ideal IMO to introduce the new passage with a short sentence to orient the reader a bit, e.g. "Not all aspects of air pollution from coal burning are harmful; in the shortterm, there can be cooling effects." FeydHuxtable (talk) 11:43, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
But now I am thinking we can keep "and these are part of the cause of climate change in Turkey" in the lead? In which case the body text would have to stay in the same article I guess? Chidgk1 (talk) 12:02, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You can do what you like, in the sense that I'm not going to edit war or even start a TP section againt any change you want to make.
However, while I'd not oppose, there is no way I'm supporting promotion if the current "Relationship to air pollution" section stays in this article. (I'm less bothered about the phrase in the lede, though still think that should ideally be removed.) I've already explained reasons why I consider the section isn't up to FA standards. I wasnt going to mention this when it seemned like you were willing to move it to another article. But while not to the extent that I'd consider it an OR violation, this sentance is seems to go slightly beyond what the source supports: "Significant amounts of coal were burnt over 30 years ago, so the effect of that on global warming is dominated by CO2". I also consider it inaccurate (based admitedly on non public models, not sources I can link to). Sorry if it seems I'm being difficult here, just releated to my view that FA class articles should be held to the highest standards. FeydHuxtable (talk) 12:48, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
OK have moved out - if you could leave the phrase in the lead to see whether other reviewers have an opinion on it that would be good - thanks for quick replies Chidgk1 (talk) 14:00, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • 6 t; write the unit out in full first
Done Chidgk1 (talk) 06:57, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would like to see slightly more comparison to other countries. Is the carbon intensity of turkeys industry below or above standards?
The biggest carbon intensity difference from other countries is obviously the poor quality of Turkish lignite, which I mentioned already. I have not been able to find any country comparisons yet for cement or steel, but am pretty confident that studies will be available soon as part of CBAM preparation. Chidgk1 (talk) 08:06, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why heat pumps mentioned in the energy section, rather than the building section?
Moved Chidgk1 (talk) 07:22, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Use the abbreviation GhG inconsistently, sometimes referring to greenhouse gas, sometimes the plural greenhouse gases, and sometimes to greenhouse gas emissions.
Done. To avoid the reader becoming bored with the word "emissions" standardized to mean "greenhouse gas emissions" (except direct quotes). Chidgk1 (talk) 07:47, 25 August 2021 (UTC) Chidgk1 (talk) 18:26, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is confusing. I'd go for the default meaning: greenhouse gas, with the plural as GhGs. FemkeMilene (talk) 06:47, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Done Chidgk1 (talk) 07:25, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • CO2 is misspelled in multiple locations, without the subscript
Done (but I assumed the ones which are direct quotes or titles should remain as is) Chidgk1 (talk) 07:39, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • the Task Force on Climate-Related Financial Disclosures: context?
Done Chidgk1 (talk) 07:29, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FemkeMilene (talk) 16:51, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

JJE edit

Taking a peek right now:

Removed Chidgk1 (talk) 07:14, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think GhG is the normal way the acronym is written.
Changed to GHG Chidgk1 (talk) 08:05, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Likewise, until local production of solar panels, electric vehicles and lithium mining began around the same time, it was hard to avoid burning a lot of petroleum. is unsourced.
Cited Chidgk1 (talk) 08:05, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Jo-Jo Eumerus I assume you mean just the 2020s subsection (if not please tell me). Would it help if I organised the "2020s" subsection of "politics" with subsubsections such as "local politics" "national politics" "international politics"? Chidgk1 (talk) 08:07, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that one. I don't think that the "In 2020...In 2021" format is good prose for a FA. Also, pings only work if they start a new line with a signature - you cannot ping someone by editing the template into an already existing post. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:46, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Done: shuffled content to get rid of WP:PROSELINE Chidgk1 (talk) 13:13, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Footnotes sometimes have capitalization and the beginning and punctuation at the end and sometimes they don't.
Removed the unpunctuated footnote as unnecessary Chidgk1 (talk) 08:33, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there any academic analysis of the politics of GHG emissions?
Almost none but I just found one published last month and added a sentence. Chidgk1 (talk) 08:33, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's all for now. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 18:39, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is something I am a little uneasy about raising, because I am not sure if it's a personal peeve of mine or a legitimate issue: Is it necessary to rely this much on news media as sources? They often oversimplify and sensationalize stuff. I am not sure for example, that this can be used to source a general statement. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:01, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
perfectly legitimate to raise. Replaced with academic source - please mention any more and I will look for scholarly studies - or any other comments Chidgk1 (talk) 09:47, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator note edit

This nomination is about to hit the three week mark. It has yet to attract any supports. There has been a very large amount of work on the article since it was nominated - [2] - which causes me to believe that it was not fully ready for FAC when it was nominated. Unless a persuasive reason is offered as to why I should not, I will be archiving this in the next day or two, for work to continue on it off-FAC in anticipation of a re-nomination. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:34, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I believe I have dealt with all the comments so far (if not please let me know), which were very helpful. Although I am continuing to make changes whilst awaiting more comments it is very hard for me to tell whether what I am doing is actually useful, because I cannot see the article from an outsider's perspective. Therefore I would like more comments on what still needs to be fixed (or of course "support" votes). As you can see from previous peer reviews if you take it off-FAC there is almost no chance of anyone giving feedback (except Femkemilene - thanks - and she is not available at the moment), so I will lose the incentive to improve it as I won't know if my future changes are a waste of time. As I have never done a featured article before I really have little idea of how close or far this is to featured quality now. Maybe I should ping people who have already commented to say I think I have fixed all the defects they pointed out, and to ask for more comments? Maybe I should ping all the people whose articles I have commented on here as only a few have commented back? Chidgk1 (talk) 11:54, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There is a reason why the second sentence of the FAC home page is " Editors considering their first nomination, and any subsequent nomination before their first FA promotion, are strongly advised to seek the involvement of a mentor, to assist in the preparation and processing of the nomination." Yes, neutrally pinging reviewers for further comments and/or supports or opposes would be a good idea. I sympathise greatly with the struggle to get this sort of article up to FAC standard, especially as a first FAC, but this is simply not the venue for the basic discussion of and changes to the article which have been taking place. FAC is for tweaks to and tinkering with near FAC-ready articles, PR - imperfect as it is - is for the big discussions/changes. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:13, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You are right that I really need people to tell me stuff like "section A should be half the length" or "section C should be a subsection of section B" or "section D is really hard to follow" or "these numbers would be clearer in a graph" rather than smaller things like "sentence Y is unclear" - although the latter comments are also useful. It was a long time ago but if I remember right I did make an attempt to find a mentor - perhaps I did not try hard enough. Will try again now. Chidgk1 (talk) 12:50, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Have put out a call at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Featured_article_candidates#Looking_for_a_mentor_for_first_%28and_probably_only%29_featured_article Chidgk1 (talk) 13:19, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I was about to review here, but a problem is that I know nothing about the subject, and it probably needs a look over from someone who does and knows the ropes around FAC. So I'd also suggest a mentor to get this in line with FAC prior to a new nomination. FunkMonk (talk) 21:27, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Subject knowledge is not required in order to review. In fact the coordinators will often hold up a promotion until the article has been reviewed by an editor not familiar with the subject area in order to ensure that it is broadly comprehensible. However, an experienced FAC-nominator and reviewer has volunteered to mentor, so I am archiving this in the expectation of seeing it here again in better shape. The usual two week pause will apply. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:52, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Greenhouse_gas_emissions_by_Turkey/archive2&oldid=1043024765"