Jump to content

Talk:Greenhouse gas emissions by Turkey/Archive 5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 ← Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7

Pre-FA thoughts

  1. It's fundamental to address every single outstanding point in both earlier FAC reviews (1 and 2).
    Fixed Chidgk1 (talk) 14:29, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
  2. Some basic things that I always look for in terms of structure:
    1. Avoid single-sentence paragraphs, even a hint of WP:Proseline is enough to deter many reviewers.
      Fixed Chidgk1 (talk) 14:05, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
    2. The lead should be a good summary of the major components of the article. I would start with a sentence or two which covers each major section of the article. If there's a section which isn't covered in the lead, ask yourself if that's something to be wary of.
      I added a sentence about reporting but not about estimates as I was not sure that is important enough yet. I am fairly happy with the lead after another editor improved it earlier, but if you have more suggestions for the lead please let me know.Chidgk1 (talk) 14:27, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
      There is now a 2020 estimate the same as 2019 total - so I think no need to amend lead for that. But I have amended to cover mitigation options other than carbon pricing - as suggested below Chidgk1 (talk) 18:17, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
    3. I've never really understood the point of a single subheading e.g. you have a 4.1 under 4, but no 4.2.
      Fixed Chidgk1 (talk) 14:11, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
  3. Linking:
    1. Remove all the duplicate links. There's a tool in the "tools" section which should highlight them all for you.
      Fixed Chidgk1 (talk) 07:01, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
    2. You can relink things you've already linked the lead in the main part of the article, and remember that you're endeavouring to make this article readable by all, so complex technical terms need to be (minimum) linked and (maximum) provided with inline or footnote explanations.
      Fixed Chidgk1 (talk) 08:24, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
  4. When in the main body, don't use acronyms/initialisms which you have only explained in the lead (e.g. GHG). Explain them again in the main body before initialising them.
    Fixed Chidgk1 (talk) 08:24, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
  5. Images should be used wisely. For instance, I think most of our readers know what a cow looks like so do you think that somehow enhances their understanding by having a picture of a cow included?
    Not their understanding but I hope it will help them remember the main points (coal, cows, cars) - I would like to add a pic of a TOGG Turkish electric car but there are none on Wikimedia commons yet Chidgk1 (talk) 18:37, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
  6. Subsections again: I'm not keen on the many many subsections you have. It undermines the flow of the article somewhat.
    Removed some subheadings Chidgk1 (talk) 09:23, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
  7. Minor issue, the data in a lot of the graphs is up to 2019, a lot has happened since then (e.g. Covid), which probably needs to be reflected if possible. My (limited) understanding is that emissions were way down for a lot of the (affected) planet in later-2020/early-2021.
    Official data for 2020 will not be published until April 2022, but I will add Edgar CO2 estimate and anything from Climate Trace when it comes - hopefully next month Chidgk1 (talk) 18:37, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
    Although Climate Trace have now published a 2020 estimate and I have added the total I would like more details from them before we decide whether their stuff should be in any graphs - pretty sure they will detail the big coal-fired power plants individually and Istanbul Airport Chidgk1 (talk) 18:31, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
  8. There are some very basic MOS things which can be sorted rapidly such as MOS:DASH for hyphens/en-dashes etc
    Do you recommend any particular tools to find and/or fix things? Chidgk1 (talk) 18:37, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
    Do you know how I can do this rapidly or should I ask the tech helpdesk? Chidgk1 (talk) 18:38, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
    done dashes - any more scripts you recommend? Chidgk1 (talk) 18:49, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
  9. I always worry about images of graphs as unless the alt text describes the data within the graph explicitly, there is no way for screenreaders to impart information to those readers who use them. A good example of that here is the File:Ghg per person Turkey.svg where you've used alt text to make a lightweight description of what's happening but sometimes having this data explicitly in the article as a table and a generated graph is better, especially if it's highly relevant to the subject at hand.
    Nowadays screenreaders can read some info from svg files - but not sure if enough so have asked at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Accessibility#Are_the_graphs_in_Greenhouse_gas_emissions_by_Turkey_OK? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chidgk1 (talk • contribs) 08:47, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
  10. References is a big topic too, things to consider:
    1. Consistency in terms of date formats, whether online sources have access-dates etc.
      The best format for dates will be numeric British, because that will not need a manual edit if the cite is copied into the Turkish article. I changed cite 1 manually but is there a tool to change the rest in bulk do you know? If you don't know I will ask the tech helpdesk. I think that if the cite has a date then it does not matter whether it has an access date or not. Am I wrong? Chidgk1 (talk) 08:10, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
    2. Linking, do you link first time, every time or never for each field the citations? Any way is fine as long as it's explainable and consistent.
      I think first time will be best. But before I go through and change I just want to check I understand properly - so for example Turkstat would only be linked from cite 1 is that right? Chidgk1 (talk) 09:05, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
    3. Are you sure each one of the references is using work/website vs "publisher" parameters correctly and consistently.
      I want the article to be easy for future editors to keep up to date - so that is why I prefer "automatic" cite. But it tends to generate "cite web" which I have sometimes manually changed to "cite news" or "cite report". Do you think I should request a change to auto-cite to ask for it to have a hardcoded list of newspapers to generate "cite news"? Or should future editors just leave whatever auto-cite generates as it is unless it is very obviously wrong (e.g. easy to spot if it puts lastname=writer and name=staff)? Chidgk1 (talk) 08:26, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
    4. I prefer to avoid SHOUTING in references too.
      Turks tend to write lots of stuff in capitals, which I also find irritating - so the caps tend to be inserted when I use auto-cite and I sometimes forget to remove them immediately - think I have got them all for now but if you spot any I miss when adding new cites please let me know — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chidgk1 (talk • contribs) 08:00, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
  11. Have a good reason as to why the external links (a) are relevant and (b) not simply used as inline references for more information in the article.
    I believe there are good reasons for all 3 of the external links - if you wish I can explain those reasons Chidgk1 (talk) 08:32, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
  12. I assume you've checked the other, similar Wikipedia articles about Australia, China, Russia, the UK and the US? None of them appear to be in a great state, but there may be areas which are covered in those articles which you've not picked up here yet.
    No reply yet at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Greenhouse_gas_emissions_by_the_United_States#How_to_convert_inventory_sector_quantities_into_economic_sector_quantities? Once Shura publish their decarbonisation report I could make a specific section on decarbonisation pathways like the Australia article - but that would conflict with your comment to reduce the number of sections - anyway we can think about that depending how detailed the report turns out to be. I did not notice anything else but if you do please let me know. Chidgk1 (talk) 08:38, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

So, Chidgk1, very general advice to start with I know, but hopefully of some use. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 11:55, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

yes definitely useful - I hope to go through these in the next few days - I don't know if you are watching this page but unless you tell me otherwise I will only ping you when I have gone through the lot - although I will be replying to the individual points as I go so as to keep track where I am - so no need to reply early to individual points unless you want to - I am watching this page but I won't be peeved if you ping me Chidgk1 (talk) 18:00, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

The Rambling Man Your points were useful thanks - I have now replied to them all - so am ready for your further advice when convenient Chidgk1 (talk) 09:29, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

The Rambling Man If I remember right I could resubmit this now as it has been 2 weeks - but it has been changed somewhat since your last comment following the useful suggestions below - and also happily because Turkey now say they will ratify the Paris Agreement - so I hope you might have time to reread it and comment further before I resubmit Chidgk1 (talk) 18:11, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Greenhouse_gas_emissions_by_Turkey/Archive_5&oldid=1072737201"