Talk:Climate change in Turkey

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Climate change in Turkey/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Femkemilene (talk · contribs) 18:50, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   There are some mistakes in the English and not all sentences feel completely natural.

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

   The lead section might be a bit short.

2. Is it verifiable with no original research?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:

   Due to a large proportion of sources being Turkish, it was not easy to verify.

   C. It contains no original research:

   The fact that Instanbul only has an inactive website is supported by that inactive website instead of a source.

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

   Checked many of the sources and statements were rewording of what was said in those sources

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   This is the major reason to fail the article immediately. The article is now a collection of loose facts and the main aspects seem to be missing.

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   Not illustrated

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

Additional comments

Thanks for working on the article! Here some questions I think to be answered in the text if you want to address all main aspects.

1. Are emission only expected to rise because of the energy policy? I assume that economic growth might also contribute. (lede)
2. Under the emissions section, mention other sources of emissions as well as energy. In one of the sources I've read that Turkey has a large domestic coal reserve, which is important mentioning as well (countries are probably more likely to cut back on imports than to leave virgin materials in their own country be)
3. Are more floods expected only because of the change in precipitation form? Globally, we expect rising temperatures lead to more intense rainfall events, even while in some countries total rainfall stays the same. Turkey is quite a big country, is there a difference is expected weather changes between regions. Have more extreme weather patterns already been observed?
4. Cities: do other cities than Instanbul have climate change adaptation plans? Which cities are most vulnerable to climate change?
5. Glaciers: I assume that Turkey has more glaciers. Here mention a) what has been observed b) what is predicted and c) how does this effect communities depending on glaciers. Often glacier provide a steady source of fresh water in the melt season and this water source will be gone if the glaciers have retreated. Is this the case in Turkey?
6. Fishing: are more species affected? Does this have a big impact on communities in Turkey or is fishery a minor economic source?
7. Politics: why did Turkey not ratify the agreement? Are opposition parties in favor on signing? The Kigali amendment is a part of the Montreal protocol. It is not widely known that ozone-depleting substances also contribute to the greenhouse effect, explain. Carbon capture might not be economically feasible even after introduction of a carbon tax/trading system. See for instance EU, where it's not economically feasible. Tell more about the islamic leaders that want urged muslims to fight climate change. Who were they and how did it influence Turkey. Did the government reply?
8. Energy. This is probably one of the most important sections of the article. Could you expand on the potential of renewable energy. Is there potential for geothermal energy or additional hydropower as well as solar and wind? In terms of solar energy, can it be used for heating as well as electricity production? What percentage of energy use and electricity production is now renewable?
9. Finance: is there a lack of finance in general? Is it easy for private companies to invest? Are they investing?
10. Reforestation: what percentage of the territory is covered by trees now? Are there other land use changes relevant for climate change?
11. What is the link between soil and climate change. Explain.
12. Transport: only cyclist and cars mentioned. What about public transport. Why is Uber important?

When you've improved the article further, I'm willing to go over the article again before a potential renomination. I find it quite interesting. Femkemilene (talk) 21:08, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Responses to above comments

1. Are emission only expected to rise because of the energy policy? I assume that economic growth might also contribute. (lede)

It is true that in the past emissions have been correlated with economic growth, however the lede is referring to the future. If the energy policy was changed this correlation could be broken by changing the sources of electricity. We won't know for some time whether emissions are rising in 2019 but as little economic growth is expected if they do rise it will not be because of economic growth. I found a paper on this and will cite it in Greenhouse gas emissions by Turkey.

2. Under the emissions section, mention other sources of emissions as well as energy. In one of the sources I've read that Turkey has a large domestic coal reserve, which is important mentioning as well (countries are probably more likely to cut back on imports than to leave virgin materials in their own country be)

The minor sources of emissions are discussed in Greenhouse gas emissions by Turkey and coal reserves in Coal in Turkey

3. Are more floods expected only because of the change in precipitation form? Globally, we expect rising temperatures lead to more intense rainfall events, even while in some countries total rainfall stays the same. Turkey is quite a big country, is there a difference is expected weather changes between regions. Have more extreme weather patterns already been observed?

Good questions: Certainly there will be differences between regions and unusual extreme weather is being observed. There is probably new info in the 7th National Communication (see refs). I hope someone else reading this might dig it out and summarise it - if not I hope to get round to it later.

1. Cities: do other cities than Istanbul have climate change adaptation plans? Which cities are most vulnerable to climate change?

Istanbul plan now online and cited. I did not find any others yet.

1. Glaciers: I assume that Turkey has more glaciers. Here mention a) what has been observed b) what is predicted and c) how does this effect communities depending on glaciers. Often glacier provide a steady source of fresh water in the melt season and this water source will be gone if the glaciers have retreated. Is this the case in Turkey?

List of glaciers in Turkey created - I don't know of any communities depending on them.

1. Fishing: are more species affected? Does this have a big impact on communities in Turkey or is fishery a minor economic source?

Fishing not a big part of the economy but anchovies are part of Black Sea region culture - added them in picture caption.

1. Politics: why did Turkey not ratify the agreement? Are opposition parties in favor on signing? The Kigali amendment is a part of the Montreal protocol. It is not widely known that ozone-depleting substances also contribute to the greenhouse effect, explain. Carbon capture might not be economically feasible even after introduction of a carbon tax/trading system. See for instance EU, where it's not economically feasible. Tell more about the islamic leaders that want urged muslims to fight climate change. Who were they and how did it influence Turkey. Did the government reply?
2. Energy. This is probably one of the most important sections of the article. Could you expand on the potential of renewable energy. Is there potential for geothermal energy or additional hydropower as well as solar and wind? In terms of solar energy, can it be used for heating as well as electricity production? What percentage of energy use and electricity production is now renewable?

Will try to cover these points in energy in Turkey and Electricity sector in Turkey and link from greenhouse gas emissions by Turkey. Also I hope the research on carbon dioxide emissions from geothermal in Turkey will be published this year (2019).

1. Finance: is there a lack of finance in general? Is it easy for private companies to invest? Are they investing?
2. Reforestation: what percentage of the territory is covered by trees now? Are there other land use changes relevant for climate change?

First question covered in Reforestation#Turkey, other land use changes are not significant.

1. What is the link between soil and climate change. Explain.
2. Transport: only cyclist and cars mentioned. What about public transport. Why is Uber important?

Uber is the only rideshare company here as far as I know: but it would be better moved to Environmental_issues_in_Turkey#Air_pollution as not very important for this article.

Citing the Seventh National Communication

Hello Ksitson

Thanks for your updates. As you can see the Seventh National Communication at https://www.tr.undp.org/content/turkey/en/home/library/environment_energy/NC7-2019.html is very long, so we should put page numbers in the cites. So for example on page 151 it says " Climate modellings show that Mediterranean basin will be one of the regions that will be affected by the global warming trend with the increase of extreme events." So in this article I will write in my own words: "Climate models predict that extreme weather events will increase in the Mediterranean." And using the source editor I will insert after the full stop {{sfnp|Seventh communication|2019|p=151}} Chidgk1 (talk) 18:04, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

1.How can I insert pdf link in reference or source?

Ah ok perhaps I jumped ahead to the source editor too quickly. Forget that for now and just stick with the Visual Editor (the "edit" link) and do cites like at 1:20 in this short video. I can sort out page numbers later. Chidgk1 (talk) 06:45, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

2. How can I modify the reference?

Click the "edit" button which is not clicked at 1:27 in the video. Or ask me and I will fix it. Chidgk1 (talk) 06:45, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

3.How can I cite a reference that is already cited?

At 1:27 in the video he used "automatic". Instead you can do "re-use". Chidgk1 (talk) 06:45, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

4. How can I insert the blue link?

Like this Chidgk1 (talk) 06:45, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ksitson (talk • contribs) 19:39, 30 November 2020 (UTC) 

Suggested changes to headings and structure

I suggest to change the headings and structure of this article to be in line with the template that has been proposed here for all articles of the nature "Climate change in Country X": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Climate_change/Style_guide (see also discussion on that page's talk page). Anyone has any objections? If not, who's got time to give it a go? I am slowly working away at this for all the countries but would love some collaborators. EMsmile (talk) 04:34, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

EMsmile Nice to see other people taking an interest in this article. It is a little different because there are not many country articles which have separate greenhouse gas articles - only 7 according to Category:Greenhouse_gas_emissions_by_country - if you know which of the other 6 countries articles are in best shape please let me know so I can compare with Turkey. Anyway I will look at the guide, think about this for these Turkey articles and respond back here. I hope to put this article up for GA review soon - do you like doing GA reviews? Chidgk1 (talk) 09:24, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

EMsmile Some thoughts:

1) I think it was a good idea you cut the GHG excerpt down to 2 paras. In the style guide the GHG section is at the top. That may be fine for countries which don't have separate GHG articles but I think here it is better at the bottom because then any reader who is really interested and has read to the bottom can then simply continue to that article.

2) The politics section does not really fit into the guide structure so I am thinking of deleting it as politics is covered in the GHG article. What do you think?

3) Not sure this article needs a "see also" as it may already have all the links in the other sections. But feel free to add if you spot any useful links not already in the article.

4) The rest I can probably shuffle around to the structure in the guide, so I will do so (remind me if I forget). Chidgk1 (talk) 13:53, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Chidgk1, thanks for your replies. I think it would be better if the section on GHG emissions was at the beginning because to me this makes the most sense. It also follows the guidance given on the WikiProject Climate Change page here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Climate_change/Style_guide#Structure (it says there "This "Outline for articles" proposed below follows the IPCC suggestion of treating causes, impacts, then mitigation."). Why would you want a reader to get all the way to the bottom before pointing them to information about emissions? And I think information on politics should be mainly covered in this article and not so much in the GHG article. I disagree with splitting the politics section into adaptation and into mitigation, I think it belongs together. I've written about that in a few places in recent days, trying to find consensus... See the articles on Climate change in Canada, Climate change in Australia and here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Climate_change#How_do_the_articles_%22Greenhouse_gas_emissions_in_country_X%22_relate/overlap_with_%22Climate_change_in_country_X%22? It all depends on if we can agree that the "Climate change in country X" article is the parent article (which touches on all the topics), whereas the GHG emissions article is the sub-article. - I agree that "See also" sections are very often superfluous.EMsmile (talk) 15:05, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

EMsmile OK will move GHG to top but mitigation definitely belongs in the GHG article. I agree politics should just be in the one article but not sure which one - will think about that later. Where do you think politics belongs and why? Why do the articles have to be parent and child - could they not just excerpt or link to each other? Chidgk1 (talk) 15:24, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Chidgk1 I think it's really important to think of such articles in a tree structure so that readers know where they are and where they can go to drill down further. If they exist in parallel then you end up with duplication across articles and it becomes messy. I think articles are often created haphazardly, e.g. by students, who don't look at what exists already but rather create a new article. That's OK but later it needs to be tidied up. If Climate change in Turkey is the overarching article then it needs to contain (brief) information on EVERYTHING, including politics and mitigation - but those sections can be fairly brief if a sub-article already exists, and guide people to read MORE DETAILS in the relevant sub-article(s). Using excerpts can work. I used them a lot here for example, in the overarching article on sanitation. It doesn't always work though especially if the text from the lead does not really "fit".EMsmile (talk) 01:08, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Chidgk1 Oh and you mentioned Good Article reviews earlier on. I don't have any experience with those. I think it's wonderful if someone does them but I'd be worried that it would chew up A LOT of time to be involved in one. How much time does it take, from your experience? Days and weeks of work? EMsmile (talk) 04:29, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes it takes days. No probs I will put it in the queue and someone will pick it up eventually. The advantage of you NOT doing it is that the reviewer will likely have no prior knowledge of the subject, so will more likely tag stuff which I have not explained properly - whereas you might miss it because your background knowledge would subconsciously fill in the gaps in the text. Chidgk1 (talk) 13:24, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Links in title?

Hello EMsmile - it was me who did this - is there a rule or is in just a custom to have no links and what is the advantage - I think the word "in" not being bold is better. Perhaps it depends on the title what is best - I thought the links suitable for "X of/in/by Y" titles where X and Y are fairly well known and have reasonable sized articles. Chidgk1 (talk) 13:15, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Yes, there is guidance on that, see here. I think my version conforms more closely with the guidance than yours. :-) "If possible, the page title should be the subject of the first sentence." (and be in bold) Also, we've done it like that for all the other 50 "Climate Change Country" articles, so it's always nice to have some consistency. Could you live with "Climate change in Turkey" in bold or do you find it very unpleasant to the eye? EMsmile (talk) 13:57, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

I think my version is better - but not so much better that it is worth spending too much of your time debating - anyone else have a view or would like to know why I think so? Chidgk1 (talk) 15:27, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Maybe raise it in the WikiProject Climate Change talk page, as it would potentially affect all 50 CCC articles (CCC = climate change by country) if more people agree with your proposal than with mine? (in my understanding, we are not supposed to put wikilinked words in bold, see style guide here) EMsmile (talk) 13:44, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Climate change in Turkey/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Horsesizedduck (talk · contribs) 00:30, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Greetings, folks. I just stumbled upon this article, found it interesting and decent, and decided to review it. Let's get the road on the show! Horsesizedduck (talk) 00:30, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Start

First impressions:

• Article seems rather well-sourced. Will possibly add hours to the expected review time. Quite nice.
• Spotted tricky sentences, one or two with unclear meaning. Will ask for corrections.

Rather than detailing here you might find it quicker to tag bomb the article with "" after each tricky or unclear sentence and if I cannot see why something is unclear I will ask you to add a reason. Chidgk1 (talk) 07:08, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

• Images look fine.
• Tricky section spotted - Greenhouse gas emissions. Lacking on sources?

The excerpt is from the lead of Greenhouse gas emissions by Turkey and I thought putting cites in the lead would be too much clutter. After that article has been copyedited by GOCE I hope to put it for FAC. So those reviewers may comment on whether lead should have cites or not. Is that OK? Chidgk1 (talk) 06:41, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

• Stable. Interested editor spotted?

Glad you are interested too. Chidgk1 (talk) 06:46, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Will resume review in around 10 - 12 hours, hopefully. All are welcome to join. Horsesizedduck (talk) 01:00, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Continuation

Returning to resume the review.

Encountered nominator! Good to see you @Chidgk1:!! Let's get to work! The article looks pretty good to me.

Small report:

• Per your suggestion, I will be using on questionable sentences;

I have made some changes to try and clarify but if still unclear please put a tag back on this time with a reason what is confusing Chidgk1 (talk) 16:41, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

• I will examine the use of the excerpt as we proceed;
• References seem pretty reliable, but I'd like for the ones in Turkish to be signalled, and I'd like some opinions from speakers of the language;

I asked at the Turkish Wikipedia environment project a while ago https://tr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vikiproje_tart%C4%B1%C5%9Fma:%C3%87evre about reliable sources but got no reply - it seems inactive. However I have now translated all the titles on the Turkish sources. If any statement which only has a Turkish source looks dubious let me know and I will try and find a source in English. Chidgk1 (talk) 15:41, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

• Ticked some more aspects off the list;

Let's keep it up. Horsesizedduck (talk) 11:51, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

I will now mark the sentences I find problematic with the tag. I'll see about fixing some myself if needed. Horsesizedduck (talk) 13:32, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Taking Balance

@Chidgk1: I think it is a good time to regroup here and take stock of what is left to do:

• You have addressed most of the issues I flagged, in adequate manner;
• The translation of the titles from Turkish has helped make the referencing in this page clearer, and I am largely convinced everything here is properly sourced per GA criteria;

As a result, I believe this article is fit for GA status. If you, or any other editor following the process, would like to suggest more changes, I will give you some time to intervene. If there is no opposition, I will then pass the article.

I await reply, and thank you for your work and dedication. Horsesizedduck (talk) 17:28, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Putting the article on hold. Will likely pass in 2-3 days, as ongoing work finishes; 7 days feels unnecessary. Horsesizedduck (talk) 19:47, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

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

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Did you know nomination

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 SL93 (talk) 00:28, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

Mount Ararat with icecap

• ... that Mount Ararat's glacier (pictured) is retreating much faster than most glaciers, due to climate change in Turkey? Source: "the recession rate is still dramatically higher than the main glacierized mountain ranges of the world" https://doi.org/10.1007/s42990-020-00029-2
  • ALT1:... that ...? Source: "You are strongly encouraged to quote the source text supporting each hook" (and [link] the source, or cite it briefly without using citation templates)

• Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/The Yankee

Improved to Good Article status by Chidgk1 (talk). Self-nominated at 08:00, 3 July 2021 (UTC).

• The article was promoted to Good Article status on July 3, so it is definitely new enough. It is long enough, well-referenced, and neutrally written with no significant copyvios. The hook fact is backed by a source inline and is reasonably interesting. The source is paywalled and accepted in good faith. The hook has a picture which is freely licensed, used in the article, and easily discernible at 100px. A QPQ has been done by the nominator. Good to go! Ashleyyoursmile! 16:10, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Is anything on the Turkish article better than this article?

Harald the Bard is improving the Turkish article - if anyone spots anything which is better on that article please amend this article or note here - thanks Chidgk1 (talk) 06:39, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

New report

https://tusiad.org/tr/yayinlar/raporlar/item/11295-turkiye-de-i-klim-krizi-ile-mucadelede-orman-ekosistemleri-ve-yutak-alan-yonetimi Chidgk1 (talk) 12:16, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Köppen projection probably needs updating from a national study

but i don’t know of one yet Chidgk1 (talk) 17:47, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

@Chidgk1 There are newer ones from Beck et al. that take into account more realistic scenarios. I'll update it soon. Uness232 (talk) 18:47, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

Great thanks Chidgk1 (talk) 08:54, 26 May 2024 (UTC)