Jump to content

Talk:Air pollution in Turkey

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Where to find a good estimate of total annual cost?

[edit]

With value of a life year being over 10,000 lira and the population being over 80 million the 0.2 year reduction in life would seem to multiply up to over 160 billion lira. But is that right? Anyway that would not be an annual cost presumably? Is there an estimate of total annual cost somewhere? Chidgk1 (talk) 06:31, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Air pollution in Turkey/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Editoneer (talk · contribs) 12:36, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Greetings.

Well-written, Neutral, Stable

[edit]
  • see cited source, would it really be a problem if you just say the answer in there? Remember that Wikipedia is supposed to have all information in store, you can't just break the narration mode to suggest the readers to click on the citation.
Done
I suggest combining both tabel cells. Click on a tabel cell then ctrl+left-click the one below and then press merge and delete "as above."

Editoneer (talk) 12:21, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Done
  • and those built before 2015 were: considering this was in 2015, it's really information that is not really important as of now. I suggest to delete those linked with 2015 as there's already one with 2020 results.
Done
  • (see cited source for more details, such as some SO2 exceptions), Please just write the SO2 exceptions, the way you are telling the viewers to click on the source because you don't seem to want to write it, it's not okay for an article written on an encyclopedia.
Done
  • Illness and death, It would be better if you rename the section "Medical dangers". Also illness isn't pluralized.
Done
  • [27] seems to have updated to 0.4 years per person.
Done
  • the air quality index Istanbul's, I think a comma been forgotten between "index" and "Instabul's".
Done
  • Lack of monitoring, this section can be merged wih the one above.
Done
  • I suggest Policy; Opposition; Limits to be merged with the sections from above or even with the lead section.
Done
  • Sources, I suggest just letting the article talk in citations.
Considering
Consider this: The sources are literally citations you can just tag to a phrase and is all done. The sources section isn't necessary and it looks like an user been paid to indirectly advertise those pages. Editoneer (talk) 06:46, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
After some consideration I decided that this cite format is best here because 1) It is neater when citing different pages from the same report 2) It matches the format in related good articles such as Coal in Turkey and Greenhouse gas emissions by Turkey.
Very well. Editoneer (talk) 12:21, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Verifiability

[edit]
  • Ankara, Erzurum and Bursa doesn't have a citation of air pollution. As Ankara and Erzurum seems to be capitals it would make sense but the common reader doesn't know about Bursa.
Removed - will add more recent info somewhere in article
  • and is one of the worst in the OECD according to a 2019 study by the Health Effects Institute., can't you put a citation linking the study? Saying that this is from a study and not linking it doesn't count.
Removed as I cannot find a 2019 source - will add more recent info somewhere in article
  • [7] doesn't quite tell me about the regulation towards that pollutant.
Done
  • [12] doesn't source me anywhere.
Are you sure you meant [12]? The doi works fine for me to the abstract of "Air pollution analysis for Ankara by air pollution index highly correlated with meteorological variables". Cite numbers have changed with my editing - is there still a problem with a cite link?
Yes, now it doesn't have a link. Editoneer (talk) 06:50, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Do you mean the cite for "As of 2018 Turkish coal is still burnt for home heating in low-income districts of Ankara and some other cities."?
  • There isn't dust mentioned in the citation, is there something I am supposed to be looking for?
Nevermind, the link works now. Editoneer (talk) 12:21, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I used "dust" as a simpler word for the "Particulate matter" in the cite. Changed to Particulates and linked column header.
Dust is a particle, particle isn't dust. Editoneer (talk) 06:46, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Done
  • Can you tell me the information that is within [19]?
Done
  • [21]; [24]; [28]; [40]; [41] has no links.
I cannot find this problem. If there are links which still have problems could you possibly tag them in the article?
The links above literally says "EEA (2019)" then has no links, and I need you to elaborate the problem with links having problems. Editoneer (talk) 12:21, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Done
  • As of 2018 Turkey emits one percent of the world's greenhouse gas emissions. Although you linked a different article, this phrase still needs a citation for confirmation.
Done
  • The Turkish national electric car is planned to start production in 2022., source.
Done

Broad in its coverage

[edit]
  • "Air pollution in urban centers, often caused by transport, and the use of small-scale burning of wood or coal, is linked to a range of health problems", it is unclear where is this being quoted from.
Removed - will add better cited info somewhere in article
  • OECD What does this stand for?
Linked
WP:TECHNICAL, it requires you to just explain it shortly, just say the company name and then put (OECD) after it. Editoneer (talk) 06:46, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Done
  • What is MW
Linked
WP:TECHNICAL, you just need to say megawatts and then put (MW) and possibily also say what measures. Editoneer (talk) 06:46, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • What is a linear decrease?
Removed
  • or all plants of 50MW, it's better to write "nuclear power plants" instead of just "plant", as every reader might not understand what the phrase is saying by "plant".
Removed
  • As of 2017; As of 2014; As of 2018; As of 2019 But as of 2020?
Perhaps this got fixed by another edit. If there is still a problem let me know.
  • Broad audience might not know what fossil fuels are.
Linked
You need to explain what fossil fuels are. Editoneer (talk) 06:46, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Done
  • Air quality index, explain what that means.
Done
  • A study of 2015/16, but one from 2020?
Sorry I don't understand - what is the problem?
The study is from 5 years ago, is one that is more recent? Editoneer (talk) 06:46, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I will leave it there for the moment but if I find a source which supersedes it I will remove it.
If you can't find a more recent study that's fine, you can keep the one that's older then. Editoneer (talk) 12:21, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Media

[edit]
  • Considering the citation said about water pollution, does the first picture also spots something about that?
Maybe I will get around to water pollution next year!
Oops, sorry, I forgot that is about air pollution and not pollution in general. Editoneer (talk) 12:21, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for submitting an article to reach for GA standards. Editoneer (talk) 12:36, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

New problems

[edit]
Done
  • laxer is not a common word, can you replace it with "stricter"?
Reworded
  • Persistent organic pollutants, the subheader seems to claim that there's no reports with that, I think it should be removed. Or it's something important that's related to air pollution but I'm missing?
Amended but if it needs further explanation or clarification please let me know
  • average excess loss of life, "life" isn't pluralized.
That is correct
  • As of 2019 measured with the air quality index, the wording makes me think that the year been measured with the AQI instead of the city. Also comma after 2019.
Moved AQI explanation higher up to try to make this clearer
  • economic costs of the reductions in the intelligence of adults, the adults is losing IQ from the pollution, I don't seem to get my head wrapped around this sentence.
You understand correctly - adults have lower IQ because of the pollution - but whether individuals have lost IQ they used to have or whether children have not developed their potential IQ I am not sure - I guess probably mostly the latter - if I had not been exposed for so long (not just in Turkey) I would perhaps be able to write a better article
No need to beat yourself up, not everyone is experienced and also there's far more worse articles than this particular one. Editoneer (talk) 08:02, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Linked to Air_pollution#Central_nervous_system for readers who want more general info
  • by burning fossil fuels a reduction of, this sentence doesn't sound good to me.
Reworded
  • for example of I feel the "of" is misplaced.
Reworded
  • Can you move the [40] reference to the end of the sentence?
    • I mean [44].

Editoneer (talk) 12:21, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Done

I'm going to do another review to check for problems, the last problem to be corrected. The last problems appears to be the "for example of" and the reference moving. Editoneer (talk) 08:02, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, last edit.

Yes you are right those city subsections were too short. I have combined them under a heading of "urban" but if you can see a better place to put that info let me know.

Okay, last edit.

  • What is climate change mitigation.
Retitled link to "helping to limit climate change"

That's lovely, now I'm going to put it on second opinion. Editoneer (talk) 11:11, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Second opinion from Larry Hockett

[edit]

I'll be happy to provide a second opinion here. I hope to post some initial feedback shortly. Larry Hockett (Talk) 05:36, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have some concerns that need to be addressed before this is ready for promotion to GA. Most of them are related to GA criteria #1 and #3, or the clarity and breadth of the writing, but there are also some problems that decrease verifiability (criterion #2). I will list my observations section by section.

Lead section

[edit]
  • You don't need many references in the lead section because this section should just summarize material that is already cited in the body of the article.
Removed refs from lead
  • "most lethal environmental issue in Turkey" - This doesn't seem to be mentioned in the body of the article and I don't see where the cited reference mentions lethality. Death is definitely an important medical danger, so it should be mentioned in that section of the article.
Mentioned as suggested and quoted "2019 yılında tüm ölümlerin %7,9’u" which means ""7.9% of all deaths in 2019" and is on the webpage which links to the report. I think things a person does to themselves like diet (except perhaps children's) and smoking (except passive) don't count as environmental issues: so it would be impossible for any other environmental issue to be more than 8% unless, God forbid, there is an accident worse than Chernobyl at the Armenian Nuclear Power Plant just across the border. So "most lethal environmental issue" seems obvious as it is more than road accidents. But I can remove it if you think that would be best.
I just think lethality can be interpreted different ways. If I walk outside and breathe in the polluted air, even for days and days, it is not plausible to think of that as a cause of death. My chances of dying would be higher in a climate-related natural disaster, for example. At the same time, I understand that pollution is a contributing factor in a lot of deaths, and I'm okay with your explanation here. Larry Hockett (Talk) 11:59, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Although there is some monitoring of air pollution compared with other European countries" - Do you mean that Turkey has more monitoring than some European countries? If so, that's too vague - how many? The source is a 21-page pdf, so a page number would be helpful. Is there a more recent source than 2013?
Oops - moved comma which had changed meaning - and changed the cite
  • "on the pollutant PM 2.5" - Is PM 2.5 a specific pollutant? If I understand correctly, PM 2.5 refers to particulate matter from various pollutants where the particles have a diameter of 2.5 micrometers or less. You have two wikilinks to particles in the lead; change the second one to link to particulates, because this helps to explain the naming of PM 2.5.
Yes it is a specific pollutant and you understand right - cannot find link to "particle" - maybe someone else changed it already
If PM 2.5 is a specific pollutant but I believe it refers to particulate matter from various pollutants, I don't see how my understanding could be correct. Larry Hockett (Talk) 23:42, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
OK in order that the lead is not too technical I have changed it to read "There is no limit on very small airborne particles" whereas in the body I have changed it to "Regulations in Turkey do not contain restrictions on particles less than 2.5 microns in diameter (PM 2.5), which cause lung diseases" with both a cite and a link specifically to "PM 2.5" which is currently a redirect but someone might write an article in future as it is so important. According to the linked article it seems that it is the size rather than the composition of the particles which is important as it "tends to penetrate into the gas exchange regions of the lung (alveolus)". This is why so many countries have a limit on PM 2.5. I could write more in the "particulates" section but I am reluctant to duplicate the info which applies to all countries.
  • "Researchers estimate that reducing..." - This reference needs a page number.
Page number added
  • What do you mean by short-range pollution?
I meant pollution which is not "long-range". But unfortunately the article about the Convention on Long-Range Transboundary Air Pollution does not seem to have the official definition of "long-range". I think rather than me coming up with my own definition of "short-range" that article should explain how the treaty defines "long-range". I don't know whether Armenia has ratified the treaty but as the power plant mentioned above is 16 km from the border I assume that would be "short-range".
When I say "What do you mean?", my point is actually that the reader might not know what you mean. Explain it to the reader, not just to me. Where does the article discuss the treaty's definition of long-range? Larry Hockett (Talk) 23:42, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Simplified to read "Pollution can affect neighbouring countries." with a cite.
  • "Turkish national electric car" - The linked WP article says there are two such cars, not one.
Amended
  • Reference #3 is another huge document and needs a page number.
Amended so link does not go directly to doc (I have been told this elsewhere) - the 7.9% figure is on the webpage which we link to which then links to doc

Sources of air pollution

[edit]
  • In general, there is very little information about each topic in this section. Surely we can find more information about, for example, traffic and pollution in Turkey.
I have added a bit more generally but I would like to have subsections for particular cities, if @Editoneer: does not object, because they are different: one obvious example being that Ankara is far from the sea but there are other differences I would like to expand on.
Okay for now. Add a source for Turkish coal being low-quality and one for the popularity of wood-burning stoves.
Done
  • "Increased car ownership" - Increased over what? Are you saying that more Turkish people own cars now than at some point in the past?
Yes - more than at any point in the past
  • "frequent urban smog conditions" - The reference doesn't really mention smog; it definitely doesn't mention frequency of smog.
Amended and also picture caption to say that the smog it shows is "early 21st century"
  • Page number for the source for "would have many benefits".
Done
  • "high-speed" should have a hyphen; countermeasure usually isn't hyphenated.
Done
  • Residential Heating - lowercase H in the heading. Elaborate on how Turkish coal is unique or why it is bad.
Both are highly detailed and cited in the coal in Turkey article so I don't want to duplicate too much - I just wrote here that it is low quality - if I should say more (perhaps by an excerpt) or cite it here please let me know.
  • "Greenpeace Mediterranean claim" - see WP:SAY.
Changed "claim"to "say"
  • The average reader might not know what "Afşin-Elbistan power plants" are.
changed to "coal-fired power plants in Afşin-Elbistan" - if they need more they can click the link
Amended
  • In this section and the Types section, there are some acronyms that have not been explained to the reader.
Linked - if more is needed (e.g. writing chemical names in full) please let me know
Spell out the names in the prose portions. An abbreviation and a link work fine in infoboxes or tables (where space is limited), but it is very easy to spell out "sulfur dioxide" when you mention it in the prose. Larry Hockett (Talk) 23:42, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Done
Done
  • Why not mention the limits from the EU Industrial Emissions Directive? Why did we choose China for the comparison?
I thought China also being a middle-income country would be a fairer comparison than the EU high-income countries. But how about if I bolded the Turkey figures in the table and put the China and EU figures right next to them in brackets in red and blue respectively?
I would explain your comparison to the reader or leave it out. Larry Hockett (Talk) 23:42, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Done

Types

[edit]
  • Each item in this section is mentioned only briefly; it is not enough information to satisfy the broadness criterion for GA. Some of the information is begging for expansion, such as when you mention dangerous PM 2.5 levels in several cities but not the names of the cities.
Done
  • Overall in this section, I just do not get a good sense of what causes these types of pollution, what can be done to reduce them, and what effects each type might have.
I have added a bit more in other parts of this article but am reluctant to duplicate too much that is already in the Air pollution article. But would welcome your further suggestions.
You don't want to copy and paste, but you should give us enough info for a basic understanding of this problem in Turkey, even if we have not read the more general air pollution article. Larry Hockett (Talk) 23:42, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Added a little background.

Medical dangers

[edit]
  • There is really nothing medical here other than loss of life and increased risk from respiratory infections.
Yes but they are both very important
This looks better except for the part about ambulances mentioned below.
  • "average excess loss of life (compared to WHO guidelines)" - The average reader is not going to know what this means. Are you saying that there are WHO guidelines to determine the normal loss of life and that Turkey exceeds this threshold?
Clarified to "average excess loss of life (compared to how many would be lost if WHO air pollution guidelines were followed)"
  • "but this will vary by location because, as of 2019, air pollution is severe in some cities." - That's not the reason it varies; that's just another way of saying it varies.
It is trying to say that a reason loss of life varies by city is because air pollution varies by city - if you or anyone can think of a better wording please suggest or change it directly

Urban

[edit]
  • This is an unclear heading. Urban what? It looks like this is actually medical information, so maybe just get rid of Urban and continue the previous section.
Retitled and amended
  • "Although improved since the 1990s, as of 2019, measured with the air quality index" - I think you are trying to say that air quality in Istanbul, as measured with the air quality index, improved from the 1990s to 2019. Right? The next sentence can be about the heart/respiratory effects, but don't try to put all that in one sentence.
Not sure the AQI existed in the 1990s, but you are right it was confusing - split into 2 sentences
  • On the cigarette pack comparison, Bursa may be worth mentioning specifically, because it is much higher than 16.
Done

Economics

[edit]
  • 2015/16 --> 2015-16
Done
  • "estimated direct costs as 2.5%" - estimated direct costs of what?
Amended
  • "A 2018 study put the health benefits at" - health benefits of what?
Amended
  • Comma between fuels and greenhouse
Done
Done
  • How do the last couple of sentences relate to economics? We have to connect the dots for the reader.
Moved to another section

External Resources

[edit]
  • The standard heading here is External links.
Done

Overall, my view is that a lot of work is going to be required to reach GA standards, but I think we should leave the review open for another week to allow the nominator or others to address my concerns. Some of my items are minor and easy to fix, but a couple of sections will require expansion, which is more time-consuming. If the article cannot be brought up to the standards in a week or two, maybe we should consider closing this review and allowing the nominator to work on the article at his or her leisure. Thanks to the nominator and the reviewer for their work here. Larry Hockett (Talk) 07:55, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And this is the reason why I don't straight-away give it the standard, I do agree with all of the things from the list. Editoneer (talk) 18:36, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Editoneer, the GA process is inherently subjective and I appreciate your willingness to ask for a second opinion. Larry Hockett (Talk) 11:59, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Editoneer Larry Hockett Thanks for your useful comments. I have made some changes. What else, if anything, do I need to do please? Chidgk1 (talk) 10:51, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Chidgk1, I will take another look when I can sit down and give it my undivided attention, which will hopefully be this evening. Larry Hockett (Talk) 09:46, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for bare urls in most recently added info - for some reason visual editor seems to be unavailable at certain times of day - I should be able to use visual editor autocite to tidy them up shortly Chidgk1 (talk) 13:42, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

New issues

  • Why is there a Summary section after the lead section? The lead is the summary of the article.
Oops that was meant to be temporary to make sure I did not lose any refs which were formerly in the lead but I forgot to dissolve it. Moved sentences to right places.
  • The history section makes more sense early in the article, not at the end. There are long gaps in the history.
I have expanded it a little but I don't think the history is important, so in my opinion having a very short section at the end is enough as I am not intending to get this article to featured standard in future.
  • The added material about electric ambulances doesn't fit in a discussion of medical dangers (which are death or illness associated with pollution). Also, you are using synthesis to put material together from multiple sources to make a point that no source makes by itself; at least two of the three sources themselves are not great (probably WP:PRIMARY).
Removed

Thank you for allowing me to clarify some of my feedback and for working to address it. Larry Hockett (Talk) 23:42, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

[edit]
Editoneer Unless you or Larry Hockett have any more useful suggestions I guess the decision is yours to make now Chidgk1 (talk) 09:18, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As it stands, it would be a no-go from me due to the unaddressed feedback and the persistence of apparently unsourced statements. Larry Hockett (Talk) 12:29, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
By unaddressed feedback do you just mean my refusal to do any more on the "history" section or was there another comment of yours I did not deal with properly? Apart from the lead (which as you say should just summarize stuff already cited elsewhere) there are other sentences without cites - some of them I considered too obvious to cite, but it may well be that I am too close to the subject and have missed things which really do need either citing or removing. If you have time to "cite bomb" any such statements with "citation needed" or similar tags that would make sure I do not miss any. Chidgk1 (talk) 17:21, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Chidgk1 I added (temporary) bold text to the feedback that seems to be unaddressed. As far as uncited material, what sticks out to me the most is when there is no citation at the end of an entire paragraph. There are a few of those. I realize that the section on passive smoking is only one sentence (one-sentence sections are not great ideas), but the lack of a reference means that the entire topic is unsourced. The smoking situation in Turkey may be obvious to people who live there, but a source is helpful for people who don't. Larry Hockett (Talk) 00:31, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Larry Hockett Oh yes sorry I had not noticed you had replied to my replies. Thanks for spending time on this. Have done a little more but as it is such a depressing subject I think I will stop now. If it does not pass I might come back to it next year, or maybe someone reading this would like to continue improving it. Up to you now Editoneer
Larry Hockett, I believe now it meets the standards, do you agree? Editoneer (talk) 18:19, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Editoneer, I went through and did a little copyediting, and I think the article has improved since the start of this review, and though I still have some concerns, I feel like (of the three of us collaborating on this process) I am potentially being the mean one here. With that in mind, and trying to maintain a balance of what the GA criteria are and what they are not, I'll explain my concerns and leave the final determination up to you.
As I was doing spot checks of sources, as we should do before promotion to GA, I found what is currently ref #23. It probably stuck out to me because it is a bare URL, but that's not the problem. (WP:GANOT suggests that bare URLs are okay as long as the source can be identified in some way.) I just question whether this site has the editorial oversight to qualify as a reliable source (as inline citations for GAs must be to reliable sources), and even if it does, I don't see anything about buildings or rural areas (the info this source is supposed to support).
Oops - have changed cite now. Chidgk1 (talk) 06:17, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
A similar issue comes up with what is currently ref #9. The passage implies that wood-burning stoves, which are used in bakeries, are significant contributors to pollution in Turkey. The source only mentions their use in one bakery, and there is no mention of pollution as far as I can see.
Qualified the statement. Chidgk1 (talk) 06:17, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I provided feedback earlier on clarifying the use of Turkish national electric car when the WP entry specifies that there are two such cars in the works. The nominator responded Amended, but it looks like this remains unaddressed, actually in two places. (I would be open to explanation as to why this shouldn't be amended, but it makes me concerned that it was handled this way.)
Carelessness on my part probably - have now amended
I can understand that it is difficult for a nominator to return again and again to articles on certain topics. I hate to get this far and not promote this, and one option is for reviewers to fix certain issues themselves. In fact, as I'm reviewing this now, I see that we have the wrong cigarette pack comparison in the Cities section (16 packs in Istanbul but 38 packs in Bursa) and I can fix that myself. I wasn't able to fix the other sourcing issues above myself, but you might be able to. Larry Hockett (Talk) 23:11, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Finishing off

[edit]

Chidgk1, thanks for your continued work on this entry. I think it is getting pretty close to GA standards. One thing sticks out to me. Under Sources of air pollution, the sourcing for burning wood is still weak. I think you should just remove the mention of wood for two reasons: 1) It's hard for me to imagine a modern country that doesn't burn wood, so it's hardly groundbreaking news, and 2) The cited source is about the author visiting a bakery, and such a source cannot be used to support the known or unknown environmental effects of burning wood. The author doesn't get into (and isn't qualified to get into) the environmental impact of burning wood.

I'll do some copyediting, but other than that, I think we're pretty close. Larry Hockett (Talk) 02:29, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Larry Hockett OK I have removed that sentence as you are right the source is weak. If coal burning is banned in cities in future perhaps it will then become clear whether wood burning is a significant source of pollution or not. In some other countries there are restrictions. In the UK, for example, only dry (seasoned) wood is allowed to be sold for burning. Chidgk1 (talk) 06:10, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for addressing that. Let's wrap this up in the GA criteria table below. Larry Hockett (Talk) 07:52, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Rate Attribute Review Comment
1. Well-written:
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct. The nominator worked hard during the review process to address issues that fell under this criterion.
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. The lead summarizes the body.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose). The nominator remedied a few sourcing issues during the review process.
2c. it contains no original research.
2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism. Earwig's tool has been down for me this weekend, but I have spot checked many of the references and used Google Search to manually detect copyvio issues. I have found nothing of concern.
3. Broad in its coverage:
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content. All images have appropriate license descriptions.
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
7. Overall assessment. Good work on a tough topic. Passing. Larry Hockett (Talk) 08:09, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oh god, I've been slacking, so everything here seems to be done and Larry seems to be willing to pass this article, I agree with that. Good job both of you. Editoneer (talk) 19:30, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Possibilities for "did you know"

[edit]

If and when this article is rated "good" it will be eligable for Wikipedia:Did you know. I think it would be nice to write something positive and encouraging. Possible completion of "Did you know that......" include:

shutting down all the 20th century coal-fired power stations in the country, creating low emission zones in cities and running electric ferries across the Bosphoros could all be part of the solution to air pollution in Turkey.

the right to clean air was recognised in the 6th century, and air pollution in Turkey could be stopped in the 21st.

Did you know nomination

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Yoninah (talk) 12:15, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(
)
  • Comment: I think I still have one free nomination left but if not please let me know so I can do a review

Improved to Good Article status by Chidgk1 (talk). Self-nominated at 08:45, 26 October 2020 (UTC).[reply]

General: Article is new enough and long enough
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems

Hook eligibility:

  • Cited: No - See below
  • Interesting: Unknown
  • Other problems: No - Both hooks are kind of speculative. Could you write another one that focuses on concrete verifiable facts that are true today? Also, the source you quote does not support "that the right to clean air was recognised in the 6th century", and the link is misleading.
QPQ: None required.

Overall: (t · c) buidhe 02:10, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would be nice to have something to cheer people up rather than something depressing like:
  • ALT2:... that 30,000 people die each year from air pollution in Turkey? Source: According to dust and sea-salt removed satellite-derived PM2.5, mortality ... of 36967 in Turkey .... estimated by all causes. ... 40583 in Turkey .... using ground PM2.5 observations for provinces with monitoring stations. [3]

(lowest estimate is 29 thousand in another source)

so how about:

  • ALT3:... that TOGG plan to drive away air pollution in Turkey?Source: Speaking about the environmentally friendly specification of the models, Karakas said: “(TOGG cars) are one-ninth of the legal (emissions) limit in Turkey, one-seventh of the legal limit in Europe and it is the cleanest in Europe." [4]

I know the cars are not yet in production but as the country has so much carmaking experience already and the factory is already being built I am sure they will be in a couple of years. Chidgk1 (talk) 06:22, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • ALT2 could work, but I don't think ALT3 does because readers are unlikely to know what TOGG is and "drive away air pollution" is too vague, not to mention not supported by the source you cited. Or even better: (t · c) buidhe 07:43, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oh no - ALT4 is true but even more depressing. Can't we have something more cheerful? You are right that readers are unlikely to know TOGG, but perhaps that does not matter, and it might intrigue them. Chidgk1 (talk) 09:17, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

BuidheI think ALT3 is fine - can you reconsider? Chidgk1 (talk) 06:19, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • ALT5: ... that with 25 million vehicles traversing its roads, vehicle density has been cited as the main factor affecting air pollution in Turkey?

Yoninah (talk) 17:45, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

OK thanks Yoninah Buidhe ALT5 sounds fine Chidgk1 (talk) 09:12, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Meh, I don't think that's all that interesting. Turkey is a big country 25 million vehicles is not that many and auto emissions are the main cause of air pollution in many countries. (t · c) buidhe 07:48, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • ALT6: ... that part of the solution to air pollution in Turkey could be electric ferries across the Bosphoros? Source: "electric propulsion systems are viable for ferry routes with a high number of trips. For these ferries, the savings in operating costs become so large that they can cover the investment costs – and even exceed them" [7]

Yoninah ALT6 is both interesting and might cheer people up. I know Buidhe said it is speculative, but although I am sure it will come one day I am not saying that. The sentence shows it is a proposal.Chidgk1 (talk) 14:39, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's good. @Buidhe:? Yoninah (talk) 14:40, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Kingsif: Isn't it in this sentence? Electric ferryboats[88][89] and a low-emission zone for road traffic have been proposed for Istanbul[90] and it has been suggested that Turkey's vehicle tax system should be changed to better charge for pollution. Yoninah (talk) 19:05, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Kingsif: In terms of inter-urban transport such as ferryboats yes "Bosphoros" is part of "Istanbul" (like the Thames ferryboat from one Tate Gallery to the other is part of London transport) but I can reword it if you think that would be better.Chidgk1 (talk) 07:54, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Chidgk1: It would be fine if the article said Bosphoros and the hook said Istanbul, because the Bosphorus is in Istanbul and so logically it can't be anywhere else. However, Istanbul is much bigger than the Bosphoros, and so the hook could be inaccurate/is claiming something that the article does not say. If the article said a ferry in London, you couldn't just assume it was the Thames, is the point. Kingsif (talk) 08:36, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Kingsif: OK I tweaked the wording and also added a quote from the report to make clear they are talking about the short distance ferries not the ones which go to Yalova or suchlike places. If there is anything else which needs improving for the DYK or otherwise please let me know.
  • @Chidgk1:@Kingsif: Hi, I came by to promote this, but I don't really see the ALT6 hook fact verified in the sources. Footnote 89 is a Dutch study that mentions electric ferries according to their use in Norway, not Istanbul. Footnote 91 is a news item that they're starting ferry service on the Bosphorus; no mention of air pollution. I can't access footnote 90. Yoninah (talk) 21:30, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Yoninah: I have added the following quote from cite 90 "Dedetaş also said that among their future plans is to put electric ferries into operation due to environmental purposes." The second frontispiece page (before p1) of cite 89 explains it is "A report on air pollution and its sources in Istanbul and the current Dutch developments that can contribute to a better air quality in Istanbul" (they must have been generous to their Scandinavian neighbours to also mention Norway). I hope that is enough. Chidgk1 (talk) 07:09, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's why I gave it an AGF tick: I couldn't access the source, but the GANR seemed to confirm all sources. Kingsif (talk) 12:05, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

More could be added from OECD survey and IEA report both 2021

[edit]

If anyone has time please add more from the 2021 OECD survey already listed in the sources section. Cite it with "edit source" and {{sfnp|OECD|2021|p=61}} or nearby page numbers.

Same for 2021 IEA report {{sfnp|IEA|2021|p=44}} Chidgk1 (talk) 13:18, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Such as p 176 seems to say that pollution limit depends on fuel type - is that right? Chidgk1 (talk) 06:15, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Do any of the problems with the Turkish article also apply to this article?

[edit]

Hello Evrifaessa

You recently tagged the Turkish article as having a lot of problems. If there are any problems with this English article please could you detail them here. If not, as your English is good, would you have time to fix the Turkish article by translating from this article? Chidgk1 (talk) 06:24, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Further suggestions

[edit]

Hello Chidgk1 and friends working on this article,

I think this is a very wide-ranging and helpful article and gives a really good overview of the problem in Turkey. :)

As promised, I've read through and have a few small suggestions for improvements...

1. There are several places in the article where we refer to the World Health Organization (WHO) guidelines. These were updated in September 2021 so the references and comparisons are likely to be wrong now.

For example:

"Researchers estimate that reducing air pollution to World Health Organization limits would save seven times the number of lives that were lost in traffic accidents in 2017."

The guideline values are now lower and more lives would be saved by implementing them. So, for example, on PM2.5, the annual exposure guideline has halved from 10 to 5 micrograms per cubic metre (µg/m3). On nitrogen dioxide, the annual guideline changed from 40 to 10 µg/m3 (75% lower).

For the new guideline values, see: https://www.euro.who.int/en/media-centre/sections/press-releases/2021/new-who-global-air-quality-guidelines-aim-to-save-millions-of-lives-from-air-pollution and https://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/345334

(They're more like "guidelines" than "limits", incidentally - because they're not mandated by law and there are no safe lower "limits" for some pollutants.)

But we could change the text to a specific date so it is still correct. For example, "In 2017 for whenever, researchers estimated that reducing air pollution to World Health Organization limits would save seven times the number of lives that were lost in traffic accidents that year." That would still be true despite the changed guidelines.

2. "There is no limit on very small airborne particles, which cause lung diseases." I am not sure which particles this refers to? Does it mean all particulates or does it mean specifically PM10, PM2.5...? A bit further down the article, it says: "The air quality index in Turkey does not include particles smaller than 2.5 microns (PM 2.5)", so perhaps we are talking specifically about PM2.5 here.

3. Flue gas emission limits: It says: "mg/Nm3 (milligrams per cubic metre)" This should say "mg/m3"?? Also in the table below.

4. Industry and construction: " Although asbestos was completely banned in 2010, it can still be a risk when older buildings are demolished,[27] in dumps,[28] and in buildings in some rural areas where it occurs naturally.[29]"

The risks of asbestos are often overstated. If left alone in an old building, it doesn't really present a risk. Only when disturbed.

5. Types and levels: I think these are the old World Health Organization guideline levels, not the ones introduced in 2021?

6. " As of 2016 average PM2.5 concentration was 42μg/m3,[40] whereas 10 μg/m3 is the World Health Organization (WHO) guideline,[41]" - again, the WHO guideline is now twice as strict as this (5 μg/m3).

7. "Asthma... can be caused by nitrogen oxides." We have to be a bit careful with this. The causes of asthma are complex and interacting, and I'm not sure you can state absolutely, categorically that a specific air pollutant is a cause? Scientists are still cautious about stating this so baldly. For example, this is the sort of thing you will find in scientific papers and statements:

"Evidence suggests that allergic respiratory diseases such as hay fever and bronchial asthma have become more common world-wide in the last two decades, and the reasons for this increase are still largely unknown. A major responsible factor could be outdoor air pollution, derived from cars and other vehicles." (from https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11453319/)

"Events in early life affect the developing lungs and can increase the risk of asthma. These include low-birth weight, prematurity, exposure to tobacco smoke and other sources of air pollution, as well as viral respiratory infections." from https://www.who.int/en/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/asthma

So probably better to talk about air pollution as a risk factor than a cause. "can increase the risk" or whatever.

8. "Medical dangers" --> More references/comparisons involving the WHO guidelines. As above... "Researchers estimate that reducing air pollution to World Health Organization limits would save seven times the number of lives that were lost in traffic accidents in 2017.[64]"

9. "Breathing the air there is equivalent to smoking 38 packs of cigarettes a year".

Comparisons involving cigarettes are sometimes unhelpful/misleading because it's not always clear what is being compared. Do we mean the entire health harm of smoking the cigarettes or do we just mean just the particulates?

If you are interested, it is explained quite well here: http://berkeleyearth.org/air-pollution-and-cigarette-equivalence/

38 packs a year would be.... 38x20 in a pack = 760 a year so perhaps 2 a day? That sounds somewhere between the EU and Chinese averages, which sounds right for Turkey.

Another complication (mentioned in the Berkeley article) is that particulates released from burning fuels may be more toxic than those from burning tobacco, which also makes it hard to know if we are comparing the same thing (the point made by C. Arden Pope).

10. The History section is quite short and general and the first bit doesn't really relate specifically to the history of Turkey's air pollution. It would be very good to have some much more specific items about Turkey if there are any.

12. Sources of air pollution: It might be helpful to group this into two sections covering outdoor and indoor air pollution. At the moment, it is a little mixed up 

Sources of air pollution
   1.1 Traffic - OUTDOOR
   1.2 Heating and cooking - INDOOR
   1.3 Coal-fired power stations - OUTDOOR
       1.3.1 Flue gas emission limits - OUTDOOR
   1.4 Passive smoking - - INDOOR
   1.5 Industry and construction - OUTDOOR

There are other indoor sources too, such as household chemicals used indoors - paints, DIY products, cleaning products, and so on.

But these are just minor improvements - and overall I think you've done a really good job on this article. 45154james (talk) 08:37, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Personal communication about when the Pollutant release and transfer register will be public

[edit]

Hello, The By-Law on PRTR of Türkiye was published in the Official Gazette No. 31679 of 4 December 2021. The aim of the By-law is to regulate the procedures and principles for establishing a pollutant release and transfer register to protect the environment and reduce environmental pollution originating from diffuse sources and industry. The list of activities and the list of pollutants in the By-Law on PRTR of Türkiye covers all activities and pollutants of European PRTR. As a result of the sectoral gradual transition strategy, the facilities whose main activity is under the energy and metal sectors started to report the pollutant release and transfer information of 2022 in 2023 and the facilities whose main activity is under the mineral/mining and chemical sectors started to report the pollutant release and transfer information of 2023 in 2024. Each of the following years will create an obligation of PRTR reporting for the following two sectors. By having the last three sectors, the PRTR reporting of all sectors will be completed by the end of 2026. As a consequence, it is unlikely to make PRTR data public before the year 2027.

Regards.

Kirletici Salım ve Taşıma Kaydı (KSTK) İzleme Merkezi

……

Thank you for your quick reply. Do you have any estimate of when the technical infrastructure might be completed?

Kolay gelsin

……… Hello,

According to the Transitional Article 1.2 of PRTR By-Law, provisions related with the public access to the PRTR are not implemented by the Ministry until the technical infrastructure is completed. 

Chidgk1 (talk) 14:09, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source to add

[edit]

https://webdosya.csb.gov.tr/db/cygm/menu/iir_turkiye_2024_20240802105351.pdf

also check above comments were done Chidgk1 (talk) 08:08, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Air_pollution_in_Turkey&oldid=1252421581"