Talk:Greenhouse gas emissions by Turkey/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: ComplexRational (talk · contribs) 15:11, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

I'll take a look at this. ComplexRational (talk) 15:11, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

At first glance, I see an abundance of content cited to reliable sources as a foundation, and will note that it is free of copyvios and is stable. However, after reading through this article several times, I unfortunately have to give this GAN a quick fail ().

There are several issues that require substantially greater work to resolve than can be provided or enacted in a GA review. Most concerns pertain to criterion 1; to be blunt, this article does not appear well-written enough to attain GA status, and needs time and a dedicated effort (that I have no doubt can be provided) to fix. In particular, I see quite a few instances of incorrect grammar, questionable diction, places where substantial copyediting is required in general (I don't think WP:ENGVAR needs to be noted; some of these conventions are universal), and a layout that needs to either have sections substantially expanded or combined into larger sections. There are also a few scattered instances where criterion 2b (inline citations for statistics, quotes, opinions, counterintuitive or controversial statements) is not met, though this can be more easily mitigated judging from the high quality of some of the sources present or available.

@Chidgk1: I understand that this can be a lot to digest, but some of these guidelines are essential to maintain the quality of good articles. And of course, not now does not mean never. I will highlight a few examples below as a starting point to continue improving this article and re-nominate it. Feel free to ask me any questions.

Examples

• "Although Turkey is likely to meet its "unambitious" Intended Nationally Determined Contribution its policies as of 2018 would still result in 2030 emissions being half as much again or even double 2010 emissions; which is why its plans to limit emissions have been described as "critically insufficient"." - this sentence is not very clear. What does “half as much again” mean? I cannot give full feedback on grammar here, but I can say that a comma is needed after "contribution".
• "Climate change in Turkey is forecast to accelerate." - by whom? If this is a published opinion, a citation is required.
• "Greenhouse Gas Sources" (heading) - should be lowercase. Headings should follow standard sentence case, with the first letter capitalized and only proper nouns capitalized thereafter.
• "526 Mt of CO2eq was emitted in 2017, however 100 Mt was reabsorbed by land use, land-use change, and forestry (LULUCF)." - as an example of copyediting, there should be a semicolon after "2017" and a comma after "however".
• "For 2017 the total uncertainty without LULUCF was 5.3%, but with LULUCF it was 13.8%, because the amount removed by forests is very uncertain." - Every time a date is introduced, there must be a comma after the year (e.g. For 2017, the total…). There are many similar instances dispersed throughout the article, including "In 2015...", "As of May 2019...".
• "Carbon capture and storage barely exists in the energy sector as it is not economically viable as Turkey has no carbon emission trading" - without punctuation, this is hard to follow. Here, I'd add a comma after "energy sector", and change "viable as" to "viable, for".
• "Moreover, coal analyis of Turkish lignite, shows it to have a lot of ash" - the citation needed tag is still valid; although it is the only one in this article, large numbers of still-valid tags also cause GANs to fail.
• "Gas fired power stations in Turkey emitted 45 Mt CO2eq in 2017: however their subsidies will be reduced in 2020." - a semicolon should replace the colon, and a comma should follow "however".
• "Turkey produces the most in Europe." - this is also a statistic or opinion, so it also needs a citation (feel free to correct me if said citation exists, though it should be included inline to fulfill criterion 2b)
• "Obviously using less concrete reduces emissions:" - is this really obvious? Words like "obviously" should be avoided as it is not always obvious and very non-neutral. The only time this is permissible is if a quoted reliable source uses the same words, and in this case, I don’t think that's likely.
• "According to the Ministry of Energy and Natural Resources climate change is one of the world's biggest problems however like neighbouring Iran, Iraq and Russia Turkey is one of the few countries which has not ratified the Paris Agreement." - also needs copyediting. I'd do so as follows, but there might be other preferences in different English varieties: According to the Ministry of Energy and Natural Resources, climate change is one of the world's biggest problems; however, like neighbouring Iran, Iraq and Russia, Turkey is one of the few countries which has not ratified the Paris Agreement.
• As a whole, per MOS:LAYOUT (referenced in criterion 1b), single-sentence sections are frowned upon and should be avoided if possible. I'd encourage expanding these sections with additional, relevant content, or consolidating them into more generic sections where the prose is not divided and within the scope of the heading.

There are other examples where copyediting is required, though they are better discussed on the talk page or fixed directly. Another GAN after copyediting and reorganization has a much higher chance of succeeding, so I wholly encourage you to continue working on the article. I'll even help with copyediting if you'd like. ComplexRational (talk) 17:43, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Hello ComplexRational,

Firstly thanks for taking on the review of Greenhouse gas emissions by Turkey. However I only just read the messages you sent me yesterday to say you had accepted the review and then failed the article. As you know the queue for GA review is several months long so I wonder if you could give me the chance to take up your valuable suggestions in the next few days to avoid having to wait until 2020 for the article to become GA. I can see you have put a lot of work into the review and I am willing to put in the effort to fix the article, but it would be demoralizing to have to wait until next year for it to be accepted. So would it be possible for you to mark the review as awaiting fixes rather than failed outright? Then if you have time it would be great if you could continue the review after I have made your suggested changes as I am sure you would come up with more good suggestions.

Chidgk1 (talk) 07:41, 8 September 2019 (UTC)