Talk:Greenhouse gas emissions by Turkey/GA2

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Jlevi (talk · contribs) 12:13, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Result Congrats Chidgk1! After a long process, I have to congratulate you on another GA. This article has made great progress since I first saw it, and it satisfactorily fulfills the criteria for a GA. Really impressive work. Jlevi (talk) 00:38, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

I will be taking up a review of this page. This will be my first GA review, so it may take a little while as I learn the ropes. Warnings in advance! I've been really impressed by the article progress as I have looked at it over the last few months, so I hope to give some good feedback. Jlevi (talk) 12:13, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

@Chidgk1: For replying to Reviewer comment, please use  Done,  Fixed,  Added,  Not done,  Doing..., or  Removed, followed by any comment you'd like to make. Consider leaving these directly below my comments. Jlevi (talk) 22:22, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Regarding 2nd reviewer request: after a very long (and hopefully productive) back-and-forth, the GA requester and I decided that given the amount of work put into the article and given my status as a first-time GA-reviewer, we should get a second opinion to weigh in. Jlevi (talk) 22:12, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

@Jlevi and Chidgk1: What would you like a second opinion on? I also note this is another Energy in Turkey article, which have had problems at GA in the past. Kingsif (talk) 22:34, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

@Kingsif: Jlevi has given lots of useful comments and as far as I can tell I have resolved everything. So can it be rated good now or is there is anything else I need to fix? Chidgk1 (talk) 06:15, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

@Chidgk1: There's still over 50 ref errors, before reading the article, so they should be fixed first. Kingsif (talk) 16:41, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

@Kingsif: Sorry what ref errors? I cannot see them. Is there some kind of tool I need to run? Chidgk1 (talk) 18:23, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

@Chidgk1: where a citation doesn't point to a source, or a source doesn't have a citation point to it. You have a lot of both, but they don't seem to line up for a simple fix. I use this script so that such errors are automatically highlighted. Kingsif (talk) 18:58, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

@Kingsif: I have left a couple of unused 2019 sources (in case they are needed later) and fixed the rest thanks. What else needs fixing please?

@Kingsif and Jlevi: If there is nothing further needs doing is it possible one of you could mark it as "good"?

I'll leave it to @Jlevi:, who left more comments after me. @Chidgk1: If you want pings to work, you need to sign them :) Kingsif (talk) 19:13, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

@Jlevi: If there is nothing further needs doing is it possible you could mark it as "good"? Chidgk1 (talk) 15:40, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Heya Chidgk1. I'll take another look through my comments and see if there's anything I feel is left out, now having some distance from the review. Regarding the unused citations: why not just put them on the talk page for now? Jlevi (talk) 19:24, 13 August 2020 (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:

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

• Chidgk1 The layout of the 'climate change mitigation' section needs some work. There are many one- or two-sentence subsections, which 'can break up the flow of the text.' I suggest combining some of these short sections with each other or with larger subsections. In particular, I suggest moving the 'Hydrofluorocarbons' subsection to the political section below, since the law it appears to be inside the political process at the moment (based on what is written). I suggest combining the three 'transport' subsections. Please feel free to push back against any suggestions. Jlevi (talk) 13:44, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

 Fixed

• Here are some comments on the lead section. First, MOS:LEADLENGTH suggests that, since this article is ~25,000 characters, its lead should have two or three paragraphs. My following suggestions should help us get there by combining, simplifying, and deleting some of the existing material.

 Fixed

By MOS:LEADPARAGRAPH, the first paragraph in the lead should define the the topic. Right now, the first paragraph is a fairly detailed discussion of Turkey's emissions levels and some other things. I have tried to add a lead that effectively outlines the article. Feel free to edit or comment. Jlevi (talk) 22:20, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

 Fixed

By MOS:INTRO, the lead should be fairly general and include relatively few technical terms. Right now (as of this edit), the second paragraph feels like it has too many specific details/numbers. Here are some possible modifications: 1) Don't include the # of megatonnes of emissions. It's hard to understand what that means without context. Consider describing it as just "over 1% of global emissions." 2) Consider removing the last sentence, again because it's overly specific. Jlevi (talk) 22:20, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

 Fixed - number of megatonnes left in but rounded for readability

1. 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:

   I will review this version for references. Jlevi (talk) 16:13, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

   C. It contains no original research:

   • I found several examples of OR previously. I'm going to check again thoroughly as I review references. However, you know your article best, @Chidgk1:! If you wouldn't mind reading through and thinking of places where you may have inadvertently including WP:OR, I would greatly appreciate it.Jlevi (talk) 03:41, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

   • Checked with Earwig's Copyvio Detector for plagiarism. Looks good! Jlevi (talk) 03:39, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

2. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

• I think this requirement is mostly addressed. However, I think the article lacks a historical perspective at the moment; almost everything is based on the last few years. To start fixing this, and to ensure 'broad coverage' is met, I recommend adding a section on GHG emissions over time (the last decades). My guess is that this is in some of the current sources already. Jlevi (talk) 03:14, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

 Fixed

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

• As it stands right now, this would be a stumbling block for passing the review. There are a variety of highly specific details in the article. They might serve nicely in other articles, but here they are too specific. See my detailed notes for more information. I expect that this can be fixed before I finish the review. Jlevi (talk) 15:08, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

1. Is it neutral?

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

2. Is it stable?

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

3. 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:

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

Some images do not clearly identify the subject of the images. For instance, in the 'Agriculture and Waste' subsection, the image of the cow does not make it clear that the image is taken in Trabzon, Turkey. I am less familiar with image use policies, but it seems like clarification of what, when, and where could be provided for a variety of images. WP:CAPCONTEXT may be a useful reference.

Optional: some of the charts are hard to read. The years are often particularly difficult. This does not need to be fixed for the Good Article review, but here is a suggestion for the future. One option is listing every fifth year, rather than every single one. Jlevi (talk) 15:35, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

1. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

Collected thoughts to be rewritten later:

- consider integrating the 'Planning and forecasts' section with the '2030 target' section

 Fixed

- the 'climate change mitigation' section has a bunch of one-or-two sentence subsections. Consider re-organizing

 Fixed but left non-ratification of Paris Agreement in own section as seems very important - open to suggestions

- the 'planning and forecasts' section and the 'climate change mitigation' section seem to have overlap in content.

 Fixed

- there seem to be a number of WP:OR issues via synthesis Example: Turkey is a middle-income country.(source 1) Middle income countries carry a heavy social cost of carbon emissions.(source 2) So Turkey carries a heavy social cost of carbon emissions.(unsourced)

 Fixed

- Grammar/spelling is MUCH better than during the last review

- Weird uses of semicolons (;)

@Jlevi: Thanks for taking this on. As you probably noticed on the talk page the 2018 detailed figures are due out on or before 15th April. I doubt this will change the text much as there will likely only be a % or 2 difference from 2017 in the different items. However I will need to redo the bar and pie chart with the new figures. So it should not delay your review.Chidgk1 (talk) 14:49, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Welcome! Yes, that won't factor into the review.Jlevi (talk) 14:55, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

energy producers, known as CESE, and it includes renewable energy producers. This will have a neg

Optional details for (perhaps) future use

1. This article probably doesn't have enough historical perspective. Adding general GHG emissions over time should satisfy the 'broad coverage' criteria, but for a Featured Article, more will probably be needed. How has public/media opinion changed over time? How has the political environment changed over time with respect to GHG emissions? Has the energy mix changed? You mention that industry has changed in Turkey in the article. Those changes presumably mean changes in the nature of emissions. Jlevi (talk) 03:14, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Yes definitely I would like to eventually get this up to featured article so that and any other tips are very useful - please add more as you think of them. So are you saying a graph of emissions from 1990 is obligatory for "good" or "featured"? It ought not to be too difficult but it will take time as I will need to do it in a format which will also work for a future Turkish article, so it will take longer than simply pasting the figures into this article as not all the graphing templates are available on Turkish Wikipedia. There are probably no pre-1990 figures but even a graph for those years will show small dips in the rising trend, which may be due to greater use of gas fired power or recessions which I might be able to explain in the text. Chidgk1 (talk) 06:08, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

I've thought about this matter. I don't think you need to add it for the Good Article review, since historical context isn't exactly an 'aspect.' Jlevi (talk) 00:35, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

2. I notice that for references in the Sources section, you sometimes use the sfnp template and sometimes just use plain text. For a Featured Article review, I'm pretty sure you will need to use a consistent format for citations (and the sfnp/short cite format is very nice!). Jlevi (talk) 18:13, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

 Fixed

3. The Turkstat 2019 link goes directly to a zip file download. It is often nice (as discussed for external links WP:RICHMEDIA but also applies generally) to avoid linking directly to non-textual links. Is there a landing page/discussion page for this report you could link to instead? Jlevi (talk) 15:21, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

 Fixed

Citation questions

Note above the version that I'm looking at. I will segment these by section.

General

- According to the Wikipedia page on Daily Sabah, the source is described as 'propaganda' with respect to pro-government sentiment. Do you think this will affect coverage of emissions- or climate-related coverage? Could you provide a justification for its reliability? (Of course, POV does not necessarily constitute unreliability.) It is used in quite a few places, so this is important for the article. Jlevi (talk) 16:58, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Where I have cited Daily Sabah giving ghg percentages and totals these are the same as in the reports to the IPCC (see below) but easier to read. The biggest uncertainty is in LULUCF, but there seems to have been a lot of foreign technical co-operation there so I get the impression the govt was surprised to find out how much is being absorbed by forests (and maybe soils) rather than inflating the figure. Re government policy yes the newspaper is always saying that the policy is good, but re what the policy actually is as far as I can tell it is correct. But if there are individual cites which need backup from other sources let me know. Chidgk1 (talk) 09:22, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Sounds fair. I recognize that there is a slant to all regional reporting. I might suggest being careful about what is said in WP and what isn't for the Daily Sabah, but that'll be on a case-by-case basis. Jlevi (talk) 14:06, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

- Similarly, many of the cited reports come from Turkish government sources. You might not have a good answer to this, but is there reason to believe that the Turkish government releases true information about emissions- and climate-related things? There has been general criticism regarding censorship of general media in Turkey, and it seems reasonable to ask similar questions about government reports. Jlevi (talk) 16:58, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Like many other countries the detailed figures Turkey provides to the IPCC are checked by independent experts from other countries who then publish any comments they have on the IPCC website. Therefore I believe they are correct in as far as the independent experts can check. Sometimes where the experts have asked for more detail (e.g. on computer modelling) I have mentioned that. Chidgk1 (talk) 09:22, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

That sounds fair. Jlevi (talk) 14:06, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

1. Lead

- What are you citing in the first sentence? I suggest removing by MOS:LEADCITE, since the statement is non-controversial.

 Done My idea was to cite the word "within" to show that according to IPCC accounting rules it is "production based accounting" NOT "consumption based accounting". For example the GHG embodied in the made-in-China Chromebook I am typing on now is not included, and neither are international flights from the massive new Istanbul Airport. But that is a bit complex for the first sentence so I will remove the cite. Chidgk1 (talk) 09:43, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

- 'Cows' seems a little odd. They aren't mentioned anywhere else in the article. Consider changing to 'agriculture' if that's what you mean? Could you explain this statement?

I wrote that in the hope of a snappy and memorable Google snippet. Now it is not in the first paragraph the snippet has become "Greenhouse gas emissions by Turkey are the contributions within Turkey to the emission of greenhouse gasses such as carbon dioxide or hydrofluorocarbons." Once the new ghg details are published (due next week as you know) I will try and figure out whether "cows" can be given a watertight citation. Certainly "coal" is watertight but I also need to check "cars" as I suspect the road transport figure may not distinguish between trucks and cars. So that sentence may need to be changed but it would be a waste of time poking around again in the 2017 figures as the categories might be slightly changed for the 2018 figures. Chidgk1 (talk) 09:43, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

The 2018 figures have just been released but unfortunately "road transport" has not been split down any further so I will have to remove "cars" as I cannot prove them. However "cows" (written as "cattle") have been split out so I have amended the sentence to "Coal, cows and construction vented about half the greenhouse gas emissions by Turkey in 2018, but almost a fifth was absorbed by trees." with the addition of "about" because a couple of tiny things have been integrated with "cement" in the inventory.

 Done by citing official figures and using simple arithmetic.

- For "the country's plans to limit emissions have been described as 'critically insufficient,'" I suggest attributing Climate Action Tracker because they are a thinktank (or similar).

 Done Done.

- The statement "the country [Turkey] was one of those contributing most to the growth" currently in the article is much weaker in the source article, where it says, "The five countries contributing most to growth in global emissions outside of China, the US, the EU and India over the last decade are Saudi Arabia, Iran, Turkey, Iraq and South Korea."

 Done Removed that cite and changed to "Emissions grew quickly during the late 20th and early 21st centuries .....". Did not add a cite here as historical graphing was easier than I thought, so added graph to history section.

- What supports the statement, "One of the main reason for Turkey's high rate of emissions is that coal-fired power stations in Turkey are subsidized"? I'm not seeing a similar statement in the article.

 Done Linked to subsidy details and added subsidy document to sources

- I'm not seeing statements about meeting INDC targets in the "BROWN TO GREEN" document

 Not done That cite is for the "unambitious" part of the sentence. No one disputes that Turkey will meet the target (see bar chart just added) but I can cite that if you think necessary. Chidgk1 (talk) 10:48, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

That sounds fair. I don't think you need to cite that in the lead. I suggest you cite for it in the body, however. Jlevi (talk) 17:17, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

You could cite to the New Climate Institute 2019 report on the key findings page (p. 6): "12 countries or regions expected to achieve, or even overachieve, their self-determined, unconditional NDC targets with implemented policies are: Argentina, Chile, China, Colombia, EU28, India, Japan, Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, Turkey, and Ukraine." Jlevi (talk) 17:34, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

 Not done "EU28" no longer exists. Also I am not quite sure it is fair in that way to compare countries which have ratified Paris with those that have not. Because those which have ratified are supposed to ratchet up their commitments. But if you have strong opinions I am open to discussion as I have not considered it deeply.Chidgk1 (talk) 08:45, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

2. 2030 Target

- I changed "increase to 8" -> "increase to the range 5.7-7.9" based on the source. Seem good? Feel free to change. Jlevi (talk) 18:11, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

 Fixed Rewrote section

- A question about the sentence, "In 2019, the OECD recommended that climate change mitigation efforts be increased[15] as the national strategy and action plan only partly covers mitigation and only for the short-term." I am unclear whether this is original research. Does the second source (written by an EU commission) speak for the OECD? Does the second source describe why the OECD made the recommendation? It seems like the second source is being used to explain the decision of the first, but I'm not sure whether the cause-effect relationship can be established. If you separate out the two sentences, then I think you'd be good. Depends on the context. Jlevi (talk) 18:11, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

 Fixed Rewrote section

- For "described as 'critically insufficient,'" I again suggest attributing Climate Tracker. Jlevi (talk) 18:11, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

 Fixed Rewrote section

- "would result in a large rise in emissions" appears to be slightly editorialized. In the EGR document, I see, "In all four countries, the emissions are projected to increase towards 2020 and beyond under current policies." Where does "large" come from? I suggest removing the word. Jlevi (talk) 18:11, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

 Fixed Rewrote section

- The last two sentences seem unrelated to the 2030 target. What is your goal with them? Would they be better placed in a different section? Jlevi (talk) 18:11, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

 Fixed Yes you are right. Have removed and may place elsewhere.

3. Greenhouse Gas Sources

- (Optional) I feel that there is some confusion in the lead between absorption (by trees and things) and emissions. Since the section is 'sources,' perhaps it would be reasonable to have an entirely different section about absorption. Jlevi (talk) 15:18, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

 Fixed

- Regarding the phrase: "many recommendations to Turkey have been resolved or will be resolved." What does "resolve" mean here? Does this mean 'implemented?' It is not totally clear to me. Jlevi (talk) 15:51, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

"Resolved" is the word used in the source, which is the experts review of the annual inventory. Each year the experts list issues with the inventory - for example that they would like more details of computer models. Some of these are resolved by Turkey explaining that the experts have misunderstood something, whereas others are resolved by Turkey changing something in the following year's inventory or report. I have not looked at other countries reports but I suppose that for a developed country on top of its game all the issues should be resolved by the following year. I hope in this year's review (which might be out in a month or two) the experts will say that Turkey has resolved all the very old issues - or if there are only one or two left I will probably detail them in the appropriate subsection.

 Fixed - removed

- This section intro seems murky compared to the overall section. There is discussion of quite a few things that don't appear in the rest of the section: overall emissions (rather than broken down by sector), GHG absorption, and UNFCCC reporting requirements. I have a few thoughts that you may (or may not) think of implementing:

- Move GHG absorption statements into the mitigation section (quick).

- Make totally new overall emissions top-level section. I notice that you repeat overall emissions in several places throughout the article. Maybe having its own section would resolve this. It would also allow more detailed discussion over a longer span of time (if you wind up getting that data eventually). (long).

- Put UNFCCC reporting requirements into the 'Politics' section, perhaps filling out the quite short 'Ratification of the Paris Agreement' subsection, since the UNFCCC reporting is part of that agreement (I think?). This would both tighten up the 'GHG sources' section and better develop the politics side of things. Jlevi (talk) 15:51, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

 Fixed - but left a little reporting info in intro as it is not political

3.1 Burning fossil fuels for heat and power

- "which under IPCC guidelines includes fuel for transport": this detail feels fairly specific. Consider moving to the appropriate section. Jlevi (talk) 22:29, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

 Done Will move - maybe to footnote

- "it is not economically viable as Turkey has no carbon emission trading.": I looked at the cited source. I see in the source that there are no carbon markets, and I see that carbon capture is not used. However, I do not see a statement explaining that the lack of capture is caused by the lack of a market. Is there a quote you feel addresses this? Jlevi (talk) 22:29, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

 Done quote and page number added

- "Energy emissions are modelled by TIMES.": I don't really know what this means, and I don't know why it matters in the context of this article (a problem for criteria 1a). There are a few options I might suggest: 1. This statement is part of the methodology for a UN-related report, so perhaps it would be more appropriate in the political section (where you could give additional context). 2. Alternatively, a short section specifically discussing the methods of reporting might be reasonable. 3. Finally, a detailed discussion of how emissions are reported might be out-of-scope for this article. If so, it might be reasonable to omit discussion of this point altogether. Jlevi (talk) 22:29, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

 Done moved to research section and improved text and links

3.1.1 Power Stations

- "mostly from burning coal.": I'm not seeing this in the American Institute of Chemical Engineers Environ Prog source. Though that source talks about 'thermal' plants, it does not distinguish between coal and other thermal sources such as natural gas and diesel oil. Does this statement come from the Turkstat tables? If so, I suggest you move the citation to the end of the sentence. If not, I suggest finding an alternative source or removing the statement about coal. Jlevi (talk) 22:29, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

 Done

QUESTION ::Yes the Turkstat tables annual spreadsheet is the source for all the slices in the brown pie chart at the top of the article, not just "Electricity(coal)" and "Electricity(gas). I have put the brown pie chart cites (they say exactly which cell in the spreadsheet the data comes from) in comments in the code which generates it because the same code can be used to generate a pie chart with Turkish labelling. Thus before an editor regenerates the pie chart next April they will know where to cut each item of data from before pasting it into the code. Should I put those cite details in this article as well do you think?

- The 'Towards Docarbonising Transport' source seems to have some problems (from what I can tell) when compared with what it supports in the article.

I don't see statements from that source connecting the lack of renewables to the high emission intensity. I only see the number itself. I also don't see a comparison to other rates, and I don't know whether comparison to a specific technology necessarily makes sense for a national mix (though it very well might)

 Fixed by adding nuclear link as alternative to renewables

(WP:NPOV) In addition, I suggest adding information from page 134 under the 'subsidies' section to the transport section of this article. The source say, "Prices for gasoline and diesel fuel in Turkey are among the highest in the world owing to high excise taxes on fuel," which seems important to include for avoiding selective highlighting of certain aspects of Turkish policy Jlevi (talk) 16:43, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

 Fixed did not add that as source too old - the lira has lost a lot of value since then - but amended some other text so I hope it reads fairer now - if not please tag or tell me whatever might be not neutral - I do now say "The rate of the special consumption tax—a sales tax on luxuries such as private cars—and the annual motor-vehicle tax is lower for electric cars than for fossil fuel cars" and "Legislation is being considered to tax high emitting cars more than low".

- The "Energy Revolution: A Global Outlook" does not actually contain information on Turkey, and this source is used to support a comparison between Turkey and the global average. Given that this whole last paragraph seems to be supported by a single number in one report and a comparison to a second report that does not mention Turkey, I think this paragraph is a stretch, and probably requires removal. However, there is valuable information in the first source which (as noted) I suggest adding for future article expansions. Jlevi (talk) 16:43, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

 Fixed The reason for citing "Energy Revolution: A Global Outlook" is to get figures for the global averages. Comparing numbers to say which is larger is allowed under Wikipedia:No_original_research#Routine_calculations. Hopefully clearer now.

3.1.2 Coal fired power stations

- You use an external link for " Afşin-Elbistan C environmental impact report," which does not follow citation recommendations. I suggest updated the citation (if necessary) and removing the external link. Jlevi (talk) 15:51, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

 Done

- The last paragraph here seems like another example of the emissions-politics confusion in the current article layout. I suggest moving this last paragraph to the political section of the article. Jlevi (talk) 16:51, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

 Done

3.1.4. Transport fuel

I have finished updating this and drastically shortened it - so it should be easier to review now.

Looks good! Jlevi (talk) 11:13, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

3.1.5 Burning fuel to heat buildings and cook

- Just a note: the Shura source looks really good. Nice find!

- The section title is somewhat unwieldy. Would 'residential fuel combustion' work, or does the 'heat buildings' include non-residential/business heat as well? Jlevi (talk) 11:13, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

 Not done Includes non-res. But I agree unwieldy title so if anyone has a better suggestion let me know or just change it.

3.2.1 Cement

- A lot of this section seems more mitigation-related than it is related to current emissions. For example, the sentence on cross-laminated timer could probably move to mitigation. At the same time, I recognize that it is a judgment call, since a lot of the changes are in comparison to current levels. Jlevi (talk) 11:13, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

 Done

3.3 Agriculture and waste

- 'Enteric fermentation'! Very nice :) And a very cute cow picture beside the section. Nice section.

@Jlevi: Thank you very much for all the time you have spent on this so far, as you uncovered several flaws I would never have spotted myself. I hope I have now fixed them all satisfactorily, but let me know if not. I hope you will be able to continue your thorough examination. Whether or not the article is eventually rated "good" I think the improvements you have prompted are of lasting value - for example a future editor in 2021 should now be able to immediately look at exactly the right cell in new tables from Turkstat and find out whether cows are belching less.

@Chidgk1: You're welcome! It's been a pleasure working with you. Sorry for my slowness, especially recently--life has gotten somewhat complicated in my real life, and I may have bitten off more than I expected with this review. Nonetheless, I'll try to make my final comments this weekend so we can close the review soon. Looking great so far! Jlevi (talk) 02:13, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

@Jlevi: As you have spent so much time and effort on this perhaps you should take a break - one of us could change the review status to request a new reviewer finish it off. Because I doubt many people will read this article this year so even if it has to wait a few months for a 2nd opinion I don't think it will make any difference in real life - COP26 is not until next year now so there is no rush. Anyway as Coal in Turkey was just rated "good", and that was the first GA for me, there are some things which the reviewer there pointed out which I should also do here (for example translating the titles of the Turkish sources). Moreover a new reviewer would spot difficulties for a first-time reader which are now impossible for you or I to detect. If you would like me to change the review status let me know (or if you don't reply in a week or so I will do anyway). Thanks again. Chidgk1 (talk) 06:34, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

@Chidgk1: Sounds good to me. I'd be happy to pop by and help out in the future if you'd like a second look at anything. And regarding your comment about not too many people looking at it: I wouldn't be too sure! Last year over 10,000 looked at this page. It's clearly high-impact! Jlevi (talk) 21:35, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

@Jlevi: Oh you think that rather than changing the status of this one to "request second opinion" it would be better to close it and submit afresh so that the new reviewer would not have to wade through all this GA2 writing?Chidgk1 (talk) 17:12, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

@Chidgk1: On the one hand, you might get a faster response with a second opinion. On the other, it's not a race, and there's plenty to work on with the article. I think it is very close to GA, so it might be worth asking for a second opinion to get the close quickly. Jlevi (talk) 17:29, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

@Jlevi: I guess a lot of those pageviews might be me. Yes Wikipedia:Good_article_nominations/Instructions#Asking_for_a_second_opinion would be great - I guess you as the reviewer should be the one to request it Chidgk1 (talk) 17:34, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

3.3 Agriculture and waste (continued)

- As of late May, this section now feels like it has a lot of little facts, but those facts aren't knit together, and many of them aren't connected to the subject of the article -- greenhouse gas emissions. Consider removing some of the specific facts (like, perhaps, moving the number of cattle to Agriculture in Turkey) if you can't find a way to connect them concretely to emissions. Jlevi (talk) 22:15, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

 Done Explained cattle are important as largest agricultural source.

- The sentence "In particular because organic waste sent to landfill emits methane, Turkey plans to separate more of it for composting" seems to be an overstatement. This is just a project in one small town, it seems. I suggest rephrasing this to reflect the limited scope of this initiative. Jlevi (talk) 22:15, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

 Fixed Contrasted incineration as alternative

4. Reducing greenhouse gas emissions

4.1 Energy

- Please clarify in the article: How exactly does access to water relate to wind and solar energy? Jlevi (talk) 22:40, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

 Done

- Please clarify in the article: What do you mean by 'carbon lock-in'? Jlevi (talk) 22:40, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

 Done linked

4.2 Buildings

- What academics have suggested this? Jlevi (talk) 22:54, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

 Done

- Please clarify what passive houses are. Perhaps you're discussing passively heated homes? Jlevi (talk) 22:54, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

 Done linked

- This section also has detailed sentences mixed into more general or unrelated commentary. For instance, the detail about charging points is very, very specific, and it's included in a much more general discussion on building codes. I'm not sure whether it will be possible to make everything work nicely, but consideration of how information is organized here would be useful. Jlevi (talk) 22:54, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

 Not done I think charging points are very important for the future of the car industry here and therefore emissions

4.3 Transport

- The first sentence is "For the 2019 UN Climate Action Summit on carbon neutrality by 2050, Turkey worked on decarbonization of land transport." Having looked at the source, I am rather confused. Turkey was leading the panel on this topic, right? Jlevi (talk) 23:00, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

 Fixed

Actually, this sentence might be more appropriate in the 'Politics' section, since it doesn't seem to describe Turkey's individual actions, but rather its collaboration with other nations.Jlevi (talk) 12:50, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

 Done

- This section is another mishmash of details. Some of the more specific details might be moved into Transport in Turkey, such as the detail about the all-electric tug. Jlevi (talk) 23:00, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

 Fixed Tug was too specific so added ferries. Deleted some details and made a "car" subsection.

- Maybe part of the confusion here is that the purpose of this section is ill-defined. Is 'reducing greenhouse gas emissions' about politics? Is it about Turkey's current status? (I'd say probably not, except where useful for contextualization). Is it about what could be done? I'd say probably not. Defining exactly the point is flexible, but right now it seems under-examined. Jlevi (talk) 12:50, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

In my opinion the answer to reducing greenhouse gas emissions here is 90% politics. My proposed solution: ratify Paris Agreement, shutdown all coal power stations immediately, stop subsidizing cattle, make low emission zones in all cities, used money saved/raised by those actions to remove all taxes on electric vehicles and employ people to make buildings sustainable. Problem solved! But I cannot put that in the article as I have not yet found a publication to cite.

5. Increasing greenhouse gas absorption by forests and soils

- Perhaps this section could just be titled 'carbon sinks.' Jlevi (talk) 12:58, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

 Done

- Why does soil organic carbon matter? Jlevi (talk) 12:58, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

 Fixed - explained and cited

6. Economics

- This appears to me as a long, scary section with few breaks. Consider finding some organization that allows subsections. By MOS:BODY: "Very short or very long sections and subsections in an article look cluttered and inhibit the flow of the prose." This isn't too long, but given the fairly complex nature of the conversation, I suggest breaking it up with subsections or some other method. Jlevi (talk) 13:25, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

 Fixed

- The details in the third paragraph about air pollution probably needs to be moved to a separate article, since it's too detailed for the page and related to pollution, rather than to GHG emissions. Same with the co-benefits section. Jlevi (talk) 01:01, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

 Fixed

- The paragraph 'In 2017, a tenth...' has some issues. This is very energy-related, and has no direct connection between it and GHGs. I suggest moving to a different article (Energy in Turkey?). Jlevi (talk) 01:01, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

 Fixed

- I like how this starts, beginning at a very abstract level regarding Eco-economic decoupling. Jlevi (talk) 01:01, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

7. Politics

- Optional stylistic thought: There seem to be a few different types of thing in the politics section: 1) political views of the country overall and individual politicians (paragraph #2/#4), 2) possible political choices the country could make (paragraph #3), and 3) bureaucratic details of policy implementations (the access to data section). It might be worthwhile to think about what subcategories of 'politics' the details in this section fall in and reorganize accordingly. Jlevi (talk) 01:01, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

- The 'Children's rights complain' section feel a bit WP:COATRACK-y, demonstrating too much detail for this article on a topic too far away from the topic of GHG emissions. However, it is a very nice section! I don't know where it can be re-incorporated exactly, but it should be put somewhere. Jlevi (talk) 01:01, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

 Fixed removed some detail and cited the actual petition to show how it is about GHG emissions

8. Media

- Optional stylistic thought: This section feels related to some of the perspectives described in the 'politics' section. Perhaps you could improve the organization by making something like a 'perspectives on emissions' section in which you could break down the perspectives of the general government, the general public, and specific important individuals. Jlevi (talk) 01:01, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

 Fixed

9. Trends and research

- Optional stylistic thought: The subsection title doesn't really seem to describe the contents of this section. This seems to have more to do with bureaucratic handling of policies. It seems similar to the 'access' section, so perhaps these can be combined in some way.Jlevi (talk) 01:01, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

 Fixed