Wikipedia:Peer review/Climate change in Turkey/archive1

Climate change in Turkey

I've listed this article for peer review as suggested at Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Climate_change_in_Turkey/archive1. As that was quick failed and closed before I had time to respond to the useful points made there I copy them below with my replies.

• User:Polygnotus/DuplicateReferences gives me 11 duplicated references

Fixed Chidgk1 (talk) 07:22, 27 October 2026 (UTC)

• WP:CITEUNSEEN is giving me 11 citations to unreliable sources, 10 of which are to Anadolu Agency. I see most of them are for reporting on stuff like the Turkish government's actions towards climate change, but WP:AAPOLITICS says "In the 2019 RfC, editors generally agreed that Anadolu Agency is generally unreliable for topics that are controversial or related to international politics." – given that climate change is a controversial topic, what makes the use of AA acceptable for this article?

Climate change is not one of the most controversial topics here in Turkey. However I have removed or replaced some of the AA cites. The others tend to be reporting what government ministers have said - if you think any of the remaining cites are still not good enough please tag them.

My concern stems from 1c of WP:FA?, which expects that the article "is a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature; claims are verifiable against high-quality reliable sources", i.e. the article cites the highest-quality reliable sources on the subject – if the information is presented in an academic paper and in a news report, then the academic paper should be cited. Of course, you could cite the news report if it is more appropriate than the academic sources, or if no academic sources exist for that information specifically. I think your reasoning behind AA is valid ("reporting what government ministers have said" and "Climate change is not one of the most controversial topics here in Turkey"), but if academic papers say the same thing, then they should be used instead of AA. Icepinner (Come to Hakurei Shrine!) 17:27, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

OK yes I agree with you. I have replaced a couple more cites and checked the 5 remaining which CiteUnseen has given the scary red no entry icon. They are all AA and in the article text I have written stuff like "Minister A said that X", where X is a government aim or future prediction, not something which has already happened which could be scientifically analysed. Chidgk1 (talk) 06:22, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

• Cite Unseen also says that the article cites a tabloid news source (NTV (Turkish TV channel))

Removed and I have installed Cite Unseen which I did not know about before thanks

• Uncited statements, including:

• "Turkey will host the 2026 United Nations Climate Change Conference" both in "International politics" of the Mitigation section and International Coorperation

The lead cite is at the end of the sentence - have cited in body of article

• Some paragraphs in Greenhouse gas emissions, including "Although greenhouse gas totals are reported some details, such as the split between cars and lorries, are not published.", "Their estimate of 72 Mt of GHG from waste in 2023 and 2024 and 2025[37] is much higher than the official figure of 15 Mt in 2023 and 2024,[13] but the reason is unclear." and "The Chamber of Engineers says that without subsidies coal-fired power stations would be gradually shutdown. Low-emission zones in cities would reduce both local air pollution and carbon dioxide emissions."

I still hope to find the reason why the Climate Trace waste GHG number is so much more than the official one and am now reading a just released scholarly source to see whether that might explain it - but if Climate Trace don't reply to my email and I cannot find a cite to say that the reason is unclear then yes I guess I will have to remove "but the reason is unclear". Re other missing cites I would be happy for you or anyone else to tag bomb the article with "cn", because sometimes something which I assume is common knowledge might not be (for example I guess Americans may not understand low-emission zones). Or the codes in the official spreadsheet may need me to add a footnote, for example to explain where exactly cars and lorry stats are officially stated to be not split so feel free to tag "clarify" anything which is unclear.

I think I have now resolved all the above by either removing or citing - feel free to tag "cn" anywhere in the article wherever still needs cite but lacks Chidgk1 (talk) 07:27, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

• "Other" in "Greenhouse gas emissions": "Kazan Soda Elektrik and Eti Soda have published figures for 2019 and 2021 respectively."

Deleted as too small to mention

• "International politics" in "Mitigation": "Hakan Mining and Generation Industry & Trade Inc. is constructing Gisagara peat-fired power station in Rwanda."

Cited that now completed

• The article has a lot of sub-subsections ("Politcs" in the Mitigation section has level four subheadings) – criterion 2b of the FAC criteria states that the article should have "a substantial but not overwhelming system of hierarchical section headings", and many sub-subsections in this article have one short paragraph

Yes you are right - looking into this at Talk:Climate_change_in_Turkey#Any_suggestions_for_heading_and_structure?

I have reduced the number of subsections. Politics is very important so I can't see how to easily reduce it - open to suggestions - maybe I should delete some of the political history and just concentrate on current politics? Chidgk1 (talk) 07:22, 27 October 2026 (UTC)

• WP:OR concern: "The board was replaced with the Climate Change and Adaptation Coordination Board (CCAMC) and a Climate Change Presidency was created,[398][399] (which seems to be just a different translation of the “Directorate of Climate Change”).[400]" – "(which seems to be just a different translation of the “Directorate of Climate Change”)" is cited to a government website, so this seems like OR to me

I checked and it is indeed just another name for the same part of the government Chidgk1 (talk) 07:22, 27 October 2026 (UTC)

• MOS:ENGVAR inconsitencies – take for example "decarbonization" vs "decarbonisation" and "organization" vs "organisation"

Standardised to British English except where "organization" is part of the name such as International Civil Aviation Organization

• Citations aren't formatted consistently (2c)

I decided to standardise on Sub-referencing as it should look tidier I think Chidgk1 (talk) 07:28, 27 October 2026 (UTC)

Not exhaustive, but many of these should've been resolved before FAC. Also found some prose issues

• "After coal and oil the third most polluting fuel is fossil gas; which is burnt in Turkey's gas-fired power stations, homes and workplaces." -> "After coal and oil the third most polluting fuel is fossil gas, which is burnt in Turkey's gas-fired power stations, homes and workplaces."
• "Coupled Model Intercomparison Project#CMIP Phase 6 (CMIP6) models it well"

I am happy for anyone to directly fix any easy prose issues they spot if ıt takes less time than noting here - if anyone accidentally changes the meaning I can easily revert or fix. Or tag "clarify" as it is hard for me to see my own mistakes.

@Icepinner: Thanks for those quick and useful comments above. Hope you can reread the article in a week or so, or I may ping you to ask for more if I don't receive enough feedback from other people.

Hope lots of other people can comment, or of course fix stuff directly like the lack of flow in my prose. Chidgk1 (talk) 08:04, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

Icepinner

It's quite late where I am right now, so I'll take a look at this tomorrow. Have you considered asking Femke to comment on this PR? She has done quite a lot of good work on climate-change articles. Icepinner (Come to Hakurei Shrine!) 16:39, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

As I guess Femke tends to be quite busy I'll maybe wait for other people to comment first then try to summarise any unsolved scientific questions for her Chidgk1 (talk) 04:35, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

@Icepinner: What do you think about the new structure and do you have any more suggestions or comments? Chidgk1 (talk) 07:22, 27 October 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for reminding, this PR completely slipped in my mind and I was busy with other stuff, like coordinating the GAN drive and doing several projects. Anyways, some more thoughts:

• The article is ~9k words. Under the size limit, but my impression is that some stuff could be WP:SPINOUT?
• In conjunction to the above comment, the article still has level 3 and level 4 subheadings. In retrospect, maybe this a topic that requires the use of those subheadings? Climate change is a nuanced phenomenon. But do we really need a level 4 subheading for heatwaves? And gas-fired power stations? As Ernest Krause mentioned below, perhaps better to combine them with other sentences?
• The article used to have a "history" section, which had a single sentence on climate change in Turkey during the bronze age. This makes me wonder if there's more to the history of climate change in Turkey... like when Turkey started industrialising? I wonder when scientists began taking note of climate change in Turkey

More to come tomorrow. This will be a top priority for me. Icepinner (Come to Hakurei Shrine!) 17:32, 27 October 2026 (UTC)

ErnestKrause comments

These are some short comments if you are planning to renominate at FAC.

1. The lede section is usually expected not to have 16 footnotes in it. The general rule to apply is that all of the footnotes should be presented with supporting prose in the main body of the article. The purpose of the lede is then to summarize all of the prose in the main body, without the need to duplicate the footnotes which should already be in the main body of the article.

2. The prose structure of article at FAC is usually a bit tighter than the rule of thumb you are currently applying. Paragraphs that are only 2-3 sentences long can often appear as being undeveloped. I'm suggesting that you might merge some of your very short paragraphs together. A rule of thumb to apply is possibly to use 4-5 sentences per paragraph as a better norm.

3. There is a two-part intricate map which appears in the article using the full geography of Turkey with a coded description on the right side of both the maps. Its currently very large and somewhat oversized. Consider re-doing the image by cropping the duplicated coded description on the right side of both maps, and then placing this coded description a single time at the bottom of both of the maps. That way the maps will be reduced by about 20-25 percent in the horizontal axis, which will look more viewer-friendly.

4. The bibliography at the end of the article is currently using mixed formats for the cited references. The convention at FAC is that you stick to either prose format or upper-case format, but not mix the two formats. For example, "Gone with the wind", is in prose format, while, "Gone With the Wind" is in upper-case format. Your current article mixes both formats rather than choosing only one or the other for consistency throughout the article.

That's something to get things started. ErnestKrause (talk) 10:21, 27 October 2026 (UTC)