Talk:Climate change in Turkey/GA2

GA Review

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

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 http://tr.wiki.x.io/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: