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)

Merge Greenhouse gas emissions by Turkey into here?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I propose to merge Greenhouse gas emissions by Turkey into here for several reasons, including that Turkey is only a medium sized emitter of greenhouse gas. Chidgk1 (talk) 13:42, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

I agree with your proposal. EMsmile (talk) 15:13, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I've moved the section about "mitigation" up a level to become a main level heading. But further work is still needed with the structure as there are too many level-3 and level-4 headings now. Also some sub-headings have the same title, e.g. "industry" which is a section title in the GHG emissions section but also in the mitigation section. I don't have time right now to involve myself further but I'll keep it on my watchlist. :-) EMsmile (talk) 09:23, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

İpc plan

https://ipc.sabanciuniv.edu/Content/Images/CKeditorImages/20251001-15101101.pdf or full english report if available needs to be cited here or in ghg article

p5 13 Gt turkey fair budget for 5050 chance under 2 deg

p6 nitric acid, cement problem

why doesnt their net zero scenario actually go to zero - 223Mt are left - p23 cannot do with current tech and state of economy - why not? what tech and economy would be needed? some detail in 6 on that page, perhaps more detail in full report?

p20 biggest cost is buildings but do they assume rebuilding for earthquake reslience anyway

p21 compatible 1.7 (ie well below 2) - why don't they make an exactly 2 scenario which would presumably be cheaper

p22 might have peaked in 21 (does climate trace agree and if not why not)

p22 coal could be out by 2036

p23 elect. relatively easy Chidgk1 (talk) 13:20, 17 January 2026 (UTC)

Looked into first 3 points and added quote including cement but I still don't fully understand why they say we need new cement tech. Maybe because if earthquake after 2053 will need lots of cement to rebuild? For comparison Japan intends to retrofit so entire building stock averages net zero before their 2050 date. Can we assume Japan will succeed and just use their buildings tech https://www.weforum.org/stories/climate-action/how-japan-is-building-resilience-through-innovation-in-the-green-materials-sector/ and copy them? Maybe I need to write more about buildings as energy (including transport) seems technically much easier. Chidgk1 (talk) 08:11, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

2024 data shows not peak Chidgk1 (talk) 09:24, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

Got as much as possible out of this but cannot find full report - maybe they have not published yet but strange as now a year later

AI suggested copyedits

As my writing always lacks flow I asked Google AI to suggest copyedits. I did not use any of the suggestions yet because I have not checked the latest Wikipedia policy about AI. Several of the suggestions would have made the text worse, but the suggested text below seems would be a good first para for

Impacts on people > Agriculture

"Agriculture in Turkey is highly vulnerable to climate change, with farming accounting for half of the country's land area and over 70% of total freshwater consumption. The sector faces severe disruptions to rain-fed crops, increased risk of desertification in arid regions, and yield losses from shifting seasonal patterns."

Leaving it here for now and might come back to thinking about copyedits later. Next time I might ask it not to search for or add new info (here it added the 70%) as it takes more time to check. Chidgk1 (talk) 06:19, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

Any suggestions for heading and structure?

@EMsmile and anyone,

I am looking at this article again. A few years ago you had some suggestions for heading and structure but as the article has changed a fair bit since then might you have time to have another look and layout below a suggested structure?

After that I might suggest some changes to Wikipedia:WikiProject Climate change/Style guide - for example "Mitigation approaches" is too vague and "Health impacts" should be before "Economic impacts" as it is more important. Chidgk1 (talk) 06:33, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

Hi Chidgk1, good to hear from you. I've recently slowed down on Wikipedia but I am still very interested in the climate change topic. You've asked about the structure. I think the main headings are fine (they follow our climate change project style guide) but there is a very large number of sub-headings and sub-sub-headings so I am wondering if that has become a bit too detailed. The article is also on the long side with 60 kB readable prose size. Perhaps there is some room for culling/condensing? I find also the list of notes and the list of external links surprisingly long.

I've added the template "section sizes" to the top of the talk page. I find this an excellent tool to investigate which sections and sub-sections are perhaps overly huge compared to other sections. Normally this could lead to the creation of spin-off articles, like one on "mitigation of CC in Turkey" although for these country climate change articles I would not be in favour of spin-off articles. Better to keep it all in one article but perhaps to condense a bit?

Also keep in mind that we are not supposed to have several identical section headings in one Wikipedia article as it gets harder to have unique URL links. E.g. the section heading "agriculture and fishery" appears more than once (it's under GHG emissions and under mitigation). I understand how this happened but I wonder if it could be changed.

And I look forward to seeing your suggestions for the style guide. Swapping health with economic impacts could be OK although I think in many cases we have more content and data for the economic impacts than for the health impacts. And they are both equally important; it's hard to say which one is more important; this might depend on the country and circumstances. EMsmile (talk) 08:02, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

@EMsmile and anyone - how about this for structure:

Greenhouse gas emissions

Uncertainty and estimates ahead of official inventory

Monitoring, reporting and verification

Greenhouse gas sources

Coal burning

Oil burning

Gas burning

Cement production

Metal production

Agriculture and fishing

Waste

Impacts on the natural environment

Temperature and weather changes

Heatwaves

Water resources

Sea level rise

Ecosystems

Impacts on people

Health

Housing

Economy

Agriculture

Fisheries and aquaculture

Hydropower

Tourism

Limiting greenhouse gas (mitigation)

Path to net zero greenhouse gas emissions

Solar power and other low-carbon electricity generation

Electrification

Agriculture and fishing

Forests and other carbon sinks

Economics

Fossil fuel subsidies

Carbon pricing

Politics

2000s

2010s

2020s

Local politics and a just transition

National Politics

International politics

Adaptation

Society and culture

Public opinion, education, data access and research

Activism

International cooperation

Historical aspects

See also

Notes

References

External links Chidgk1 (talk) 07:55, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

I thought the main level headings and structure was already pretty good in the CCC style guide (if not, then maybe we should discuss it at the style guide page?). But of course you're also free to deviate from the "recommended structure" for this particular article. Your modified structure would probably help to reduce the depth of level headings, i.e. you would then have fewer of the sub-level 3, 4, 5 headings. Some specific comments:

• "Limiting greenhouse gas" is vague to me. Then it should be "Limiting greenhouse gas emissions" to be precise. But isn't "Mitigation" exactly that? Or are you saying laypersons wouldn't know what "mitigation". Maybe like this "Mitigation (reducing GHG emissions)"?
• "Economics" as a main level heading is also vague to me. Is it about the costs of climate change effects? Or the costs of adaptation/mitigation? Doesn't your content under "economics" overlap with your content under "politics"?
• "Politics" is also vague. Perhaps better: "Government policies" or "Political activities"?
• Why "historical aspects" instead of the short standard heading of "history"? EMsmile (talk) 12:48, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

Yes I think "mitigation" is an extremely confusing word for people new to the subject. Thanks for those helpful suggestions - I will consider and definitely use some of them Chidgk1 (talk) 07:01, 25 September 2026 (UTC)

Peer review

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

From changes I have seen on some other pages I suspect a bot is being tested to fix these - I will check that

• 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?

• 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 will check this

• 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 am going to ask for bot or Wikignome help on this as I am concerned the amount of typing would give me RSI again

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)