Wikipedia:Peer review/Greenhouse gas emissions by Turkey/archive1

Greenhouse gas emissions by Turkey

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion is closed.

I've listed this article for peer review because before submitting it for a "featured article review" I think it would be useful to have comments on the scientific and technical aspects of the article.

1) Although Turkey's GHG is only 1% of world total I wonder whether this article could be used as a model for someone else to improve the article on Greenhouse gas emissions by the United States, which are more important as they are a much higher percentage. One of the similarities between the 2 countries is that they both report to the UNFCCC as Annex 1 countries, and this will continue whether or not they are parties to the Paris Agreement. So as the reporting spreadsheets are a common format might the cells I have used here also be relevant to the USA and if so would stuff written here help with that article? Conversely is there anything useful in that article which is missing an equivalent here?

2) I think I have just done routine calculations, and they do not count as original research so are allowed on Wikipedia, but have I made any assumptions which anyone would dispute or made any calculation mistakes?

3) Are the graphics good and would any more be useful?

Of course advance comments on anything which might come up in a "featured article review" are also welcome.

Thanks, Chidgk1 (talk) 06:51, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

a small comment to start with: the top hat note should not contain a see also, but should only be used to disambiguate confusing other articles.* I think the last sentence of the first paragraph is an open door and should be removed.

Removed last sentence of first para. Left hatnote as I could not see a better way to do it - the "see also" template says it should not be used at the top of an article.

The first sentence of the second paragraph isn't a contrast, said a word but is used improperly. You mention negative emissions to sentences further on, so just simply leave out the trees in that sentence.

Tweaked

Language: the third paragraph has the phrase "one of the" used twice, shortly after each other. Reword.

Tweaked

The first sentence of the subsection "comparison with the European Union" is awkward. I propose removing the first subclause.

Tweaked

In the "burning fossil fuel section", transport is put as an energy industry, which I believe is incorrect. Also, shouldn't energy industry be singular?
Business people shouldn't have a dash between it.

Tweaked

Sheep, and goats emit less than cattle and are also subsidized but, as of 2019, estimates of the effects of government policy on the agriculture and waste sectors' emissions are lacking. Not a contrast, so the but there is improper. Consider splitting the sentence in two.

Tweaked

I try to verify the source about geothermal energy. The article now states that it is uncertain that geothermal is low carbon, but the cited source (92) doesn't support that. I've never really heard of geothermal energy emitting loads of Carbon.

Quoted correct cite

I think it is important to have copyediting done to the article before you contact any of the featured article potential mentors. My experience with global warming, is that the featured article is quite a bit more difficult than a good article. Femke Nijsse (talk) 21:02, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've had another look at the article and did some copyediting.

Thanks - I have put in queue for copyedit

Further comments:

the first line contains MOS:REDUNDANCY. Try to reformulate without the word are. For instance: greenhouse gas emissions by Turkey include those by industry, transport, and agriculture.

Tweaked and will revisit later as lead can definitely be improved further - Note to self - COME BACK TO THIS

I've got an idea that may work better than the current one: Greenhouse gas emissions by Turkey account for around 1% of the world's total.. Femke Nijsse (talk) 10:30, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes better - changed thanks

See also should in general not repeat things that are already in the article

I could not spot any repeated links - perhaps you noticed one via a redirect?

Climate change in Turkey is mentioned in lede and see also. I don't mind too much here, but maybe other will.

Removed - no doubt there will be lots of picky people in a FAR

Fyi: you'll be using FAC (featured article candidate), not FAR (featured article review for old FAs that may be out of shape) Femke Nijsse (talk) 07:01, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

can you put the unit of the first graph in a bigger font?

Have ordered a couple of books about data vis so might be other improvements to make too - Note to self - COME BACK TO THIS

CO2 equivalents are now formatted differently across the article. I like CO₂eq as formatting.

Done

Missing word: The is important because carbon emissions from soil are directly related to climate change but vary with different soil interactions.

Sorry I don't understand - what word is missing where?

Second paragraph carbon sink. The (...) is important

Fixed

There are many statements that should be attributed: for instance: and in 2019, the airline was named as one of those with the weakest plans to cut emissions. Please go through the entire article and either remove sentences or attribute them. Femke Nijsse (talk) 16:25, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note to self - COME BACK TO THIS

what is the white bits in the second graph? Quite a big chunk not to be named. Femke Nijsse (talk) 16:27, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Those are the years where there is no target and actual emissions are not yet known.

I meant this graph

The white area is a large number of different sources. I think if I have more than 6 slices readers will be confused, but once I get my data vis books I will see what they advise.

Adding other should suffice. Femke Nijsse (talk) 12:49, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Done

Quite a lot of time, for instance in the notes, the numbers in chemical equations don't have subscripts: N20, CO2.

Fixed

I don't know what this means: pie chart less as just electricity (note a)

Amended to "the pie chart just shows coal used for electricity" - if that is still unclear please let me know

are required every 4 years the 5th biennial -> insert comma after years

Done

emissions total but fuel sales -> insert comma before but

Done

LULUCF -> apparently you have to write this out full the first time you mention it in the body as well. As it is a difficult abbreviation, I would not abbreviate it at all. Femke Nijsse (talk) 19:56, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Done

Turkey's human contributions to greenhouse gas emissions can be segmented by sector, such as looking specifically at Turkey's power stations or transport -> the fact that you talk about sectors means that the word human is not necessary in the sentence. Femke Nijsse (talk) 19:59, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The person who did the GA review wrote that - I think they meant to contrast human with bovine contributions. Will consider again when I review the lead as a whole. Note to self - COME BACK TO THIS

where applicable, change 'as of 2020' into 'in 2020', or 'a 2020 report indicated that', or omit it altogether (f.i., As of 2019 fuel quality and emissions standards for new cars are less strict than those in the neighbouring EU can have it omitted as it is unlikely that Turkey's fuel quality is going to get better than the EU's). Make sure that no two sentences that follow each other have 'as of'. Femke Nijsse (talk) 20:06, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hopefully fuel quality standards here will eventually match those in the EU - anyway I think we are already better than Australia. Will go through and consider all the "as of". Note to self - COME BACK TO THIS Chidgk1 (talk) 08:11, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

overcite: In 2019 ratification of the Kigali amendment to the Montreal Protocol reducing emissions of hydrofluorocarbons was under consideration by parliament and awaiting presidential approval. contains four citations. All of them necessary? Having so many midsentence citations makes it difficult to read the sentence.

Simplified

But by 2020 there was no agreement on whether composting is a good solution, with some arguing for incineration. -> In general, you don't want to start sentences with the word but. The first citation doesn't verify the statement.

Fixed

e-bikes needs a dash Femke Nijsse (talk) 12:57, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Currently both spellings are used but by the time this gets to be featured the English language will have dropped this hyphen I predict.

With its nuclear power station not yet completed and despite considerable potential for expansion of renewable energy in Turkey, which except for geothermal emits little CO2eq, the country averages a grid emission intensity over 460 gCO2eq/kWh (over 125 t/TJ), similar to that of natural gas. The sentence has too many subclauses. I have been googling emissions from geothermal, I cannot find support for your statement that they emit loads of carbon. I don't think the source you cited supports that, at least not in the pages you indicated.
A trial of reinjecting gas back into the ground is planned for 2021. Not clear that this is about geothermal.

I'm gonna call it quits now. I think there is quite a lot to do before this article meets the featured article criteria. One more comment: if possible try to avoid worse and better if you can also describe the as more or less. Femke Nijsse (talk) 16:39, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for all your comments Chidgk1 (talk) 18:55, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]