Talk:Agriculture in Turkey/GA1

GA Review

Unsuccessful. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:04, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: TheTrueSauce (talk · contribs) 18:29, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

It is reasonably well written.
a. (prose, spelling, and grammar): . On some sections, sentences are simple and flow; while on> the others it reads very clunky. Such as this section from History
The Anatolian hunter gatherers began farming around 8300 BC.[16] These farmers moved into Thrace (now European Turkey) around 7000 BC. Cows, sheep and goats may have been domesticated first in southern Turkey.[17] In Thrace there was strip farming.[18]

I have expanded and attempted to improve the flow Chidgk1 (talk) 12:06, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

b. (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a. (reference section):

b. (citations to reliable sources):

c. (OR):

d. (copyvio and plagiarism):
It is broad in its coverage.
a. (major aspects):

b. (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
a. (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales):

b. (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall:
Pass/fail:

(Criteria marked are unassessed)

Eek's section

Extended content

@Chidgk1: So I don't think TheTrueSauce is going to do this review justice, which I am discussing with them on their talk page. In the meantime, I am very likely to quick fail this. You could convince me otherwise, but this seems a long ways away from meeting GA criteria 1 and 3. I had to entirely rework the lead, and do a lot of copyedits just now, and the article still reads extremely clunky. I'd suggest having a member of WP:GOCE run through this before coming back to GA. Further, you have some pretty barebones sections. The history of Agriculture could probably take up an entire article by itself, and you have...three short sentences. So unless you believe the article is far closer to GA than it appears, I am going to quickfail this and suggest you come back another time. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 02:00, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@CaptainEek OK I admit I was a bit cheeky putting this in in such as state but I exprcted to be in the queue for much longer. Can’t you just ask them to postpone it for a few weeks? With a review coming up that gives me a push to work on it otherwise I get lazy or distracted Chidgk1 (talk) 07:16, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Chidgk1 Well, that's not a great way to go about it. As much as I understand that one can wait in the GA queue for a while, they aren't always reviewed in order of priority, its often by interest. How about this: I'll give you until May 18, a month from now, to spruce this up. You ping me around then, as I'll have just finished finals and will have some free time to do a proper review then, which should give you enough time to get this up to the GA level. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 07:24, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It would be unwise to say that I am not doing this review justice. I marked GA criteria 1 as as passing because I was going to wait for more edits. I will make that clear TheTrueSauce (talk) 12:20, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@CaptainEek @TheTrueSauce Thank you both for your useful comments so far and sorry for giving you extra work by putting this in too early. I hope it will be OK if I first ping @TheTrueSauce hopefully in a week or 2 then after they have had a thorough look and I have dealt with any of their suggestions (@TheTrueSauce be ultra critical and don’t mark anything “pass” yet) we can wait for @CaptainEek to take a look when convenient.

@CaptainEek Good luck with your finals Chidgk1 (talk) 12:44, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's reasonable. It will give TheTrueSauce an opportunity to learn the ropes :) CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 19:58, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@CaptainEek: TheTrueSauce has been blocked as a sockpuppet of a banned user. I think this gives you free rein to handle this GA review as you see fit. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:46, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@CaptainEek Hope your finals went well. Might you have time to review this? Chidgk1 (talk) 10:06, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I will not be able to timely review this, and anyone else is free to do so. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 03:14, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Chiswick Chap's section

@Chidgk1: Well, let's see if we can't sort this out. Here are a few things I notice today. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:32, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

Refs [1] .. [15] cite the lead section; of those, only [3] and [9] cite anything in the article body (i.e. anything but the lead). This is an issue as it indicates that the citations, and probably the materials they cite (e.g. "Half of Turkey's land is agricultural,[4]" does not occur in the article body), are "new" in the lead – where instead, the lead should contain nothing "new", but simply form a summary of the article body, and the citations should not normally be repeated. Text needs to be moved out of the lead; the lead will probably need to be rewritten to match the article text once it has been reworked as indicated below.

As the lead is excerpted to Economy of Turkey I assume it should be fully cited - temporarily duplicated lead to body of article - TO DO rewrite lead once GA reviewer is happy with body

Text

It has been noted that the History section is very brief. I suppose we could take the view that "Agriculture in Turkey" carries an implicit "today" in the title, but in other cases like Agriculture in the United Kingdom there is a substantial History section. Given that Turkey is home to part of the Fertile Crescent and thus the origins of agriculture itself, and that there are marvellous sites like Çatalhöyük where evidence of a diverse agriculture flourishing c. 7000 BC have been found, we should really have some sort "Origins of agriculture" [within Turkey] section.

I have now defined the scope in a hatnote as "about farming since the creation of the Republic of Turkey in 1923". TO DO: move out of scope text and pictures to other articles. Chidgk1 (talk) 06:59, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Soils section seems both undue and (were the topic to be covered) also inadequate. If we thought such a thing necessary, the section ought to cover all Abiotic components of the environment (there's a list of them in that article). So it might discuss water supply, drought, irrigation, and climate change as far as water-as-a-factor in Turkey's agriculture was concerned; or it might talk about soil fertility and acidity by region, for instance. Personally I'd not worry if we didn't talk about soils as such, but it would definitely be helpful to discuss how the regions of Turkey vary, i.e. where are grapes grown, or the olive; which areas are most important for animal husbandry.

I strongly feel the soil section is important - TO DO: read around subject and try to expand, consider regionality - maybe needs own section Chidgk1 (talk) 04:19, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The "Crops" section works pretty well. There are some rather short paragraphs and subsections but these are bearable.

Combined a couple of short paras - feel free to edit anything yourself if you like - I can easily revert if I disagree (very unlikely for grammar or style changes) or you accidentally change any meaning Chidgk1 (talk) 04:23, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've no idea why "Vegetables and fruit" starts talking about diet ("In 2022, half of children ate fruit every day...") which is not a concern of an agriculture article. Same goes for the "Placing fruit and vegetable outside shops ... vegan cheese was unconstitutional." which are totally off-topic.

Moved to Health in Turkey Chidgk1 (talk) 07:31, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"but advertising and internet sales are banned.[52] The spirit rakı is mainly distilled from grapes.[51]" seem to be off-topic?

I don't have a strong opinion whether it is in scope or not but I could not immediately see which section or article to move this to - if you have a suggestion please say Chidgk1 (talk) 09:10, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Then just remove it. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:25, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Removed Chidgk1 (talk) 05:00, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Hydroponics may be done" should read "In 2023, hydroponics is starting to be used".

Done thanks Chidgk1 (talk) 04:30, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The "Tea" section begins well but the second paragraph wanders off from production (relevant) into consumption (off-topic). The import tariffs question may be relevant but it belongs in "Trade and economics".

TO DO move some bits and consider combining to a different section Chidgk1 (talk) 05:16, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The "Tobacco" section is almost entirely off-topic, being on consumption, crime, and harms rather than focusing on production (the only part which concerns Agriculture).

Moved to Smoking in Turkey TO DO - add one sentence to history section here linking to that article Chidgk1 (talk) 05:24, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The "Livestock" section repeatedly wanders into matters for the "Environment" section (which itself needs reorg, see below). This may be a greenhouse gas WP:COATRACK. It also wanders repeatedly into consumption (off-topic again) like a goat straying into a garden. Suggest a search-and-destroy mission, look for "consumption" and remove any sentence on that subject. Then do a bit of rewriting, on-topic.

TO DO Chidgk1 (talk) 09:13, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The "Stubble burning" section smells like a WP:COATRACK. I suggest it be removed or merged with "Research and environment", but see below.

de-emphasized by removing heading and merging Chidgk1 (talk) 05:33, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The "Research and environment" section is a ragbag, as the "and" in the section heading suggests. Its focus seems to be more on "best practice" with a view, possibly, to meeting international goals; but it needs substantial work whatever it's supposed to be doing. Some of it seems to be concerned with the following section as it touches on subsidies, so some reorganisation, rewriting, or rethinking are required. Sections should be coherent, i.e. each section has a single purpose, identified in its heading, and covered by its text.

Split TO DO: consider further

The "Trade and economics" section begins well but breaks up into short unconnected paragraphs and the reader loses the plot as there doesn't seem to be any coherent story here. Subsidies are mentioned in paragraph 2 and then again in a solitary subsection. Climate change is mentioned in the last paragraph but really belongs with water/irrigation etc as already mentioned. i.e. some reorganisation and rewriting is needed.

TO DO

The "Irrigation" section probably needs to be merged into a wider discussion, per the talk of "abiotic factors" above. Probably the minimum is a "Regional variations" section, and a discussion of water/drought/irrigation/climate change as mentioned above.

TO DO look at Water supply and sanitation in Turkey and drought in Turkey and see how those fit with this

Images

The images are in their way attractive but having gone through them carefully, I find (see below) that many of them are not really ideal for their purpose, which is to give the reader an immediate impression of the agricultural practices, people, crops, livestock, equipment, and environment of Turkish agriculture, and at the moment they don't achieve that. Please take the (rather numerous and detailed) suggestions here as just that, suggestions for how the article's illustrations might best support the text.

The sentence split across the captions of 2 images in the lead is unconventional, as is having 2 images up there: and neither of them convey the message "Agriculture in Turkey" at all clearly. The only image so far in the article which would do that is "Black Sea tea farming in 1990", but it does not look typical of Turkish agriculture in 2023 (or perhaps "Farmer in Hacımirza", but its function is unclear). I think we need a much better lead image. There are many to choose from on Commons. For example, the image here is both evocative and distinctive; another nice one is File:Sivas zara nasır'da tarım faaliyetleri.jpg. There are many others.

TO DO make a foursome pic for consideration as lead pic Chidgk1 (talk) 09:19, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The 2 current lead images should probably move to the "Veg and fruit" section where a small well-chosen gallery might be in order.

Not sure yet as the foursome above might be 4 products where Turkey produces most TO DO consider gallery good or not Chidgk1 (talk) 09:19, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The 2 History images may be ok but need to be cited and related to the text; they also need to be in a gallery so they don't run into the next section. You might do well with a map of the Fertile Crescent, too.

Removed as now out of scope Chidgk1 (talk) 09:33, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The White stork image is cute but not very helpful in this context.

The sunflower field is a workable image, but the text mentions Thrace (which should be wikilinked) not Adana so it's actually confusing (the reader may wonder if these are synonyms, or overlap, which they don't).

The olive trees image wrongly stresses "Egyptian campion" not the olives. It's a pretty image but unless the campion is a crop, rather misleading. You might want to pick a clearer image for the purpose like File:Olive trees orchard in Karaisalı, Adana 2016 03-1.jpg; there are many others.

The opium poppies image is unconnected to the cited text of "Herbs medicines and spices" (a heading which needs a comma or two). If "Turkey produces most of the world's oregano.[62]" then an image of that herb being grown would be better.

The pistachios image is pretty but would be better in context; File:Pistacia vera in Turkey.jpg shows a harvest which looks more like agriculture, perhaps.

The "Livestock" section needs a Turkish livestock image. You might use something like File:Sheep flock in grasland in Eğribel 02.jpg, for instance.

The "Goatherd and his Kangal dog near Kozan" says something about "One Man and His Dog" but not very much about "Sheep, goats and buffalo" really. File:Goats flock in Osmaniye 2013-04-26 01-1.jpg might do; ideally we'd have both flock and herder. The image File:Buffalos at Hürmetçi Wetlands.jpg is of high (featured) quality and shows landscape, herd, and herder.

Not sure the greenhouse gas image belongs in this article: Greenhouse gas emissions by Turkey seems a more natural home really.

It is already in that article but I thought readers would be surprised to see how much GHG cattle here emit - but if you insist I will remove it Chidgk1 (talk) 09:36, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well at best it's tangential; cattle are always major contributors; unless there is specific evidence that Turkish cattle are worse than usual (i.e. not just editorial opinion) I suggest we just delete it. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:29, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted Chidgk1 (talk) 05:01, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Farmer in Hacımirza" doesn't seem relevant to "Research and environment", and I've no idea what its purpose may be.

References

At first sight the article is rather fully cited to modern and reliable sources, which is promising. Several citations however lack dates, authors, or publishers: some sort of date is mandatory even if it's only a retrieval date. e.g. [14] has nothing but a title, and I was unable to retrieve it, could be a dead link. [24] is live but inadequately cited (and you may be going to delete that one anyway).

[12] is a dead link.

Removed as already has another cite Chidgk1 (talk) 09:42, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As another example, [36] "Oilseeds annual" is both inadequately and inaccurately cited. The title is "Oilseeds and Products Annual", and it should be cited with its publisher (USDA/GAIN), date, report number, and author.

Please ensure that all the refs are cited to that standard. For example, [64] "Tree Nuts Annual" similarly needs its publisher, date, report number, and author.

Summary

Well, I'm not sure how you'd like to proceed here. Having listed the immediate issues, I see that most aspects of the article could, as CaptainEek indicated, justify a quick-fail. I'm actually used to working through issues, whether as author or reviewer, so if you'd like to get to work on the comments, we can take things as they come and see if we can get this up to GA standard. Let me know what you'd like to do. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:03, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - definitely intend to work on this but after tomorrow may not be able to until next month. Chidgk1 (talk) 08:38, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'll put it on hold. We should aim to finish it by the end of August. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:59, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Chidgk1: Good progress has been made, but many items remain open, with 2 weeks to go. Your situation? Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:45, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hope to have time to sort them all. Having said that the subject is turning out to be more complex than I expected. For example I only just discovered a Turkish article about agricultural products. So I may be tempted to add more info. Also fixing the issues you have identified so far may reveal more things which should be fixed. As it is not a fast moving subject (I would be very surprised if EU agrees any agriculture trade agreement any time soon) I am not worried that events would occur faster than I can keep up with them. So I won't be upset if you fail it at the end of this month. But it would be great if you could detail any new issues you spot so I can hopefully fix them eventually. Chidgk1 (talk) 17:48, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly hope it won't come to that; would much rather see the current set of items fixed, leading to a pass. If you need a modest extension that can be arranged. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:20, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Chidgk1: I see you're busy on-Wiki, but I'm not seeing any indication that you're intending to get this GAN completed, with or without a deadline extension. Is it time to call a halt on this one now? Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:40, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I think you are right. I have found some new sources so as well as dealing with the problems you found I hope to expand it a bit. If you see any new issues please could you list them here before closing. Sorry this has been so long but your hard work has definitely not been wasted as you have spotted so much I would not have noticed myself. Chidgk1 (talk) 08:58, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

OK, let's stop now. I'd be happy with just the items listed above, but as you're finding new sources the review does not look to be converging on a stable article any time soon. Obviously as soon as you're happy you've addressed your and my concerns, the article can be resubmitted. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:03, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.