Air pollution in Turkey has been listed as one of the
Natural sciences good articles under the
good article criteria. If you can improve it further,
please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can
reassess it. Review: October 26, 2020. ( Reviewed version). |
Air pollution in Turkey received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article. |
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
A fact from Air pollution in Turkey appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 8 December 2020 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|
With value of a life year being over 10,000 lira and the population being over 80 million the 0.2 year reduction in life would seem to multiply up to over 160 billion lira. But is that right? Anyway that would not be an annual cost presumably? Is there an estimate of total annual cost somewhere? Chidgk1 ( talk) 06:31, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Editoneer ( talk · contribs) 12:36, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
Greetings.
see cited source, would it really be a problem if you just say the answer in there? Remember that Wikipedia is supposed to have all information in store, you can't just break the narration mode to suggest the readers to click on the citation.
Editoneer ( talk) 12:21, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
and those built before 2015 were:considering this was in 2015, it's really information that is not really important as of now. I suggest to delete those linked with 2015 as there's already one with 2020 results.
(see cited source for more details, such as some SO2 exceptions), Please just write the SO2 exceptions, the way you are telling the viewers to click on the source because you don't seem to want to write it, it's not okay for an article written on an encyclopedia.
Illness and death, It would be better if you rename the section "Medical dangers". Also illness isn't pluralized.
the air quality index Istanbul's, I think a comma been forgotten between "index" and "Instabul's".
Lack of monitoring, this section can be merged wih the one above.
Policy;
Opposition;
Limitsto be merged with the sections from above or even with the lead section.
Sources, I suggest just letting the article talk in citations.
and is one of the worst in the OECD according to a 2019 study by the Health Effects Institute., can't you put a citation linking the study? Saying that this is from a study and not linking it doesn't count.
As of 2018 Turkey emits one percent of the world's greenhouse gas emissions.Although you linked a different article, this phrase still needs a citation for confirmation.
The Turkish national electric car is planned to start production in 2022., source.
"Air pollution in urban centers, often caused by transport, and the use of small-scale burning of wood or coal, is linked to a range of health problems", it is unclear where is this being quoted from.
OECDWhat does this stand for?
MW
or all plants of 50MW, it's better to write "nuclear power plants" instead of just "plant", as every reader might not understand what the phrase is saying by "plant".
As of 2017;
As of 2014;
As of 2018;
As of 2019But as of 2020?
fossil fuelsare.
Air quality index, explain what that means.
A study of 2015/16, but one from 2020?
Thank you for submitting an article to reach for GA standards. Editoneer ( talk) 12:36, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
laxeris not a common word, can you replace it with "stricter"?
Persistent organic pollutants, the subheader seems to claim that there's no reports with that, I think it should be removed. Or it's something important that's related to air pollution but I'm missing?
average excess loss of life, "life" isn't pluralized.
As of 2019 measured with the air quality index, the wording makes me think that the year been measured with the AQI instead of the city. Also comma after 2019.
economic costs of the reductions in the intelligence of adults, the adults is losing IQ from the pollution, I don't seem to get my head wrapped around this sentence.
by burning fossil fuels a reduction of, this sentence doesn't sound good to me.
for example ofI feel the "of" is misplaced.
Editoneer ( talk) 12:21, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
I'm going to do another review to check for problems, the last problem to be corrected. The last problems appears to be the "for example of" and the reference moving. Editoneer ( talk) 08:02, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
Okay, last edit.
Okay, last edit.
climate change mitigation.
That's lovely, now I'm going to put it on second opinion. Editoneer ( talk) 11:11, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
I'll be happy to provide a second opinion here. I hope to post some initial feedback shortly. Larry Hockett ( Talk) 05:36, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
I have some concerns that need to be addressed before this is ready for promotion to GA. Most of them are related to GA criteria #1 and #3, or the clarity and breadth of the writing, but there are also some problems that decrease verifiability (criterion #2). I will list my observations section by section.
Overall, my view is that a lot of work is going to be required to reach GA standards, but I think we should leave the review open for another week to allow the nominator or others to address my concerns. Some of my items are minor and easy to fix, but a couple of sections will require expansion, which is more time-consuming. If the article cannot be brought up to the standards in a week or two, maybe we should consider closing this review and allowing the nominator to work on the article at his or her leisure. Thanks to the nominator and the reviewer for their work here. Larry Hockett ( Talk) 07:55, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
And this is the reason why I don't straight-away give it the standard, I do agree with all of the things from the list. Editoneer ( talk) 18:36, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
New issues
Thank you for allowing me to clarify some of my feedback and for working to address it. Larry Hockett ( Talk) 23:42, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
Chidgk1, thanks for your continued work on this entry. I think it is getting pretty close to GA standards. One thing sticks out to me. Under Sources of air pollution, the sourcing for burning wood is still weak. I think you should just remove the mention of wood for two reasons: 1) It's hard for me to imagine a modern country that doesn't burn wood, so it's hardly groundbreaking news, and 2) The cited source is about the author visiting a bakery, and such a source cannot be used to support the known or unknown environmental effects of burning wood. The author doesn't get into (and isn't qualified to get into) the environmental impact of burning wood.
I'll do some copyediting, but other than that, I think we're pretty close. Larry Hockett ( Talk) 02:29, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
Rate | Attribute | Review Comment |
---|---|---|
1. Well-written: | ||
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct. | The nominator worked hard during the review process to address issues that fell under this criterion. | |
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. | The lead summarizes the body. | |
2. Verifiable with no original research: | ||
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. | ||
2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose). | The nominator remedied a few sourcing issues during the review process. | |
2c. it contains no original research. | ||
2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism. | Earwig's tool has been down for me this weekend, but I have spot checked many of the references and used Google Search to manually detect copyvio issues. I have found nothing of concern. | |
3. Broad in its coverage: | ||
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. | ||
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). | ||
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. | ||
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. | ||
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio: | ||
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content. | All images have appropriate license descriptions. | |
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. | ||
7. Overall assessment. | Good work on a tough topic. Passing. Larry Hockett ( Talk) 08:09, 26 October 2020 (UTC) |
Oh god, I've been slacking, so everything here seems to be done and Larry seems to be willing to pass this article, I agree with that. Good job both of you. Editoneer ( talk) 19:30, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
If and when this article is rated "good" it will be eligable for Wikipedia:Did you know. I think it would be nice to write something positive and encouraging. Possible completion of "Did you know that......" include:
shutting down all the 20th century coal-fired power stations in the country, creating low emission zones in cities and running electric ferries across the Bosphoros could all be part of the solution to air pollution in Turkey.
the right to clean air was recognised in the 6th century, and air pollution in Turkey could be stopped in the 21st.
The result was: promoted by
Yoninah (
talk)
12:15, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
Improved to Good Article status by Chidgk1 ( talk). Self-nominated at 08:45, 26 October 2020 (UTC).
General: Article is new enough and long enough |
---|
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems |
---|
|
Hook eligibility:
QPQ: None required. |
Overall: ( t · c) buidhe 02:10, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
(lowest estimate is 29 thousand in another source)
so how about:
I know the cars are not yet in production but as the country has so much carmaking experience already and the factory is already being built I am sure they will be in a couple of years. Chidgk1 ( talk) 06:22, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
Oh no - ALT4 is true but even more depressing. Can't we have something more cheerful? You are right that readers are unlikely to know TOGG, but perhaps that does not matter, and it might intrigue them. Chidgk1 ( talk) 09:17, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
BuidheI think ALT3 is fine - can you reconsider? Chidgk1 ( talk) 06:19, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
Yoninah ( talk) 17:45, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
Yoninah ALT6 is both interesting and might cheer people up. I know Buidhe said it is speculative, but although I am sure it will come one day I am not saying that. The sentence shows it is a proposal. Chidgk1 ( talk) 14:39, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
Electric ferryboats[88][89] and a low-emission zone for road traffic have been proposed for Istanbul[90] and it has been suggested that Turkey's vehicle tax system should be changed to better charge for pollution.Yoninah ( talk) 19:05, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
If anyone has time please add more from the 2021 OECD survey already listed in the sources section. Cite it with "edit source" and {{sfnp|OECD|2021|p=61}} or nearby page numbers.
Same for 2021 IEA report {{sfnp|IEA|2021|p=44}} Chidgk1 ( talk) 13:18, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
Such as p 176 seems to say that pollution limit depends on fuel type - is that right? Chidgk1 ( talk) 06:15, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
Hello Evrifaessa
You recently tagged the Turkish article as having a lot of problems. If there are any problems with this English article please could you detail them here. If not, as your English is good, would you have time to fix the Turkish article by translating from this article? Chidgk1 ( talk) 06:24, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
Hello Chidgk1 and friends working on this article,
I think this is a very wide-ranging and helpful article and gives a really good overview of the problem in Turkey. :)
As promised, I've read through and have a few small suggestions for improvements...
1. There are several places in the article where we refer to the World Health Organization (WHO) guidelines. These were updated in September 2021 so the references and comparisons are likely to be wrong now.
For example:
"Researchers estimate that reducing air pollution to World Health Organization limits would save seven times the number of lives that were lost in traffic accidents in 2017."
The guideline values are now lower and more lives would be saved by implementing them. So, for example, on PM2.5, the annual exposure guideline has halved from 10 to 5 micrograms per cubic metre (µg/m3). On nitrogen dioxide, the annual guideline changed from 40 to 10 µg/m3 (75% lower).
For the new guideline values, see: https://www.euro.who.int/en/media-centre/sections/press-releases/2021/new-who-global-air-quality-guidelines-aim-to-save-millions-of-lives-from-air-pollution and https://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/345334
(They're more like "guidelines" than "limits", incidentally - because they're not mandated by law and there are no safe lower "limits" for some pollutants.)
But we could change the text to a specific date so it is still correct. For example, "In 2017 for whenever, researchers estimated that reducing air pollution to World Health Organization limits would save seven times the number of lives that were lost in traffic accidents that year." That would still be true despite the changed guidelines.
2. "There is no limit on very small airborne particles, which cause lung diseases." I am not sure which particles this refers to? Does it mean all particulates or does it mean specifically PM10, PM2.5...? A bit further down the article, it says: "The air quality index in Turkey does not include particles smaller than 2.5 microns (PM 2.5)", so perhaps we are talking specifically about PM2.5 here.
3. Flue gas emission limits: It says: "mg/Nm3 (milligrams per cubic metre)" This should say "mg/m3"?? Also in the table below.
4. Industry and construction: " Although asbestos was completely banned in 2010, it can still be a risk when older buildings are demolished,[27] in dumps,[28] and in buildings in some rural areas where it occurs naturally.[29]"
The risks of asbestos are often overstated. If left alone in an old building, it doesn't really present a risk. Only when disturbed.
5. Types and levels: I think these are the old World Health Organization guideline levels, not the ones introduced in 2021?
6. " As of 2016 average PM2.5 concentration was 42μg/m3,[40] whereas 10 μg/m3 is the World Health Organization (WHO) guideline,[41]" - again, the WHO guideline is now twice as strict as this (5 μg/m3).
7. "Asthma... can be caused by nitrogen oxides." We have to be a bit careful with this. The causes of asthma are complex and interacting, and I'm not sure you can state absolutely, categorically that a specific air pollutant is a cause? Scientists are still cautious about stating this so baldly. For example, this is the sort of thing you will find in scientific papers and statements:
"Evidence suggests that allergic respiratory diseases such as hay fever and bronchial asthma have become more common world-wide in the last two decades, and the reasons for this increase are still largely unknown. A major responsible factor could be outdoor air pollution, derived from cars and other vehicles." (from https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11453319/)
"Events in early life affect the developing lungs and can increase the risk of asthma. These include low-birth weight, prematurity, exposure to tobacco smoke and other sources of air pollution, as well as viral respiratory infections." from https://www.who.int/en/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/asthma
So probably better to talk about air pollution as a risk factor than a cause. "can increase the risk" or whatever.
8. "Medical dangers" --> More references/comparisons involving the WHO guidelines. As above... "Researchers estimate that reducing air pollution to World Health Organization limits would save seven times the number of lives that were lost in traffic accidents in 2017.[64]"
9. "Breathing the air there is equivalent to smoking 38 packs of cigarettes a year".
Comparisons involving cigarettes are sometimes unhelpful/misleading because it's not always clear what is being compared. Do we mean the entire health harm of smoking the cigarettes or do we just mean just the particulates?
If you are interested, it is explained quite well here: http://berkeleyearth.org/air-pollution-and-cigarette-equivalence/
38 packs a year would be.... 38x20 in a pack = 760 a year so perhaps 2 a day? That sounds somewhere between the EU and Chinese averages, which sounds right for Turkey.
Another complication (mentioned in the Berkeley article) is that particulates released from burning fuels may be more toxic than those from burning tobacco, which also makes it hard to know if we are comparing the same thing (the point made by C. Arden Pope).
10. The History section is quite short and general and the first bit doesn't really relate specifically to the history of Turkey's air pollution. It would be very good to have some much more specific items about Turkey if there are any.
12. Sources of air pollution: It might be helpful to group this into two sections covering outdoor and indoor air pollution. At the moment, it is a little mixed up
Sources of air pollution 1.1 Traffic - OUTDOOR 1.2 Heating and cooking - INDOOR 1.3 Coal-fired power stations - OUTDOOR 1.3.1 Flue gas emission limits - OUTDOOR 1.4 Passive smoking - - INDOOR 1.5 Industry and construction - OUTDOOR
There are other indoor sources too, such as household chemicals used indoors - paints, DIY products, cleaning products, and so on.
But these are just minor improvements - and overall I think you've done a really good job on this article. 45154james ( talk) 08:37, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
Air pollution in Turkey has been listed as one of the
Natural sciences good articles under the
good article criteria. If you can improve it further,
please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can
reassess it. Review: October 26, 2020. ( Reviewed version). |
Air pollution in Turkey received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article. |
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
A fact from Air pollution in Turkey appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 8 December 2020 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|
With value of a life year being over 10,000 lira and the population being over 80 million the 0.2 year reduction in life would seem to multiply up to over 160 billion lira. But is that right? Anyway that would not be an annual cost presumably? Is there an estimate of total annual cost somewhere? Chidgk1 ( talk) 06:31, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Editoneer ( talk · contribs) 12:36, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
Greetings.
see cited source, would it really be a problem if you just say the answer in there? Remember that Wikipedia is supposed to have all information in store, you can't just break the narration mode to suggest the readers to click on the citation.
Editoneer ( talk) 12:21, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
and those built before 2015 were:considering this was in 2015, it's really information that is not really important as of now. I suggest to delete those linked with 2015 as there's already one with 2020 results.
(see cited source for more details, such as some SO2 exceptions), Please just write the SO2 exceptions, the way you are telling the viewers to click on the source because you don't seem to want to write it, it's not okay for an article written on an encyclopedia.
Illness and death, It would be better if you rename the section "Medical dangers". Also illness isn't pluralized.
the air quality index Istanbul's, I think a comma been forgotten between "index" and "Instabul's".
Lack of monitoring, this section can be merged wih the one above.
Policy;
Opposition;
Limitsto be merged with the sections from above or even with the lead section.
Sources, I suggest just letting the article talk in citations.
and is one of the worst in the OECD according to a 2019 study by the Health Effects Institute., can't you put a citation linking the study? Saying that this is from a study and not linking it doesn't count.
As of 2018 Turkey emits one percent of the world's greenhouse gas emissions.Although you linked a different article, this phrase still needs a citation for confirmation.
The Turkish national electric car is planned to start production in 2022., source.
"Air pollution in urban centers, often caused by transport, and the use of small-scale burning of wood or coal, is linked to a range of health problems", it is unclear where is this being quoted from.
OECDWhat does this stand for?
MW
or all plants of 50MW, it's better to write "nuclear power plants" instead of just "plant", as every reader might not understand what the phrase is saying by "plant".
As of 2017;
As of 2014;
As of 2018;
As of 2019But as of 2020?
fossil fuelsare.
Air quality index, explain what that means.
A study of 2015/16, but one from 2020?
Thank you for submitting an article to reach for GA standards. Editoneer ( talk) 12:36, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
laxeris not a common word, can you replace it with "stricter"?
Persistent organic pollutants, the subheader seems to claim that there's no reports with that, I think it should be removed. Or it's something important that's related to air pollution but I'm missing?
average excess loss of life, "life" isn't pluralized.
As of 2019 measured with the air quality index, the wording makes me think that the year been measured with the AQI instead of the city. Also comma after 2019.
economic costs of the reductions in the intelligence of adults, the adults is losing IQ from the pollution, I don't seem to get my head wrapped around this sentence.
by burning fossil fuels a reduction of, this sentence doesn't sound good to me.
for example ofI feel the "of" is misplaced.
Editoneer ( talk) 12:21, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
I'm going to do another review to check for problems, the last problem to be corrected. The last problems appears to be the "for example of" and the reference moving. Editoneer ( talk) 08:02, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
Okay, last edit.
Okay, last edit.
climate change mitigation.
That's lovely, now I'm going to put it on second opinion. Editoneer ( talk) 11:11, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
I'll be happy to provide a second opinion here. I hope to post some initial feedback shortly. Larry Hockett ( Talk) 05:36, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
I have some concerns that need to be addressed before this is ready for promotion to GA. Most of them are related to GA criteria #1 and #3, or the clarity and breadth of the writing, but there are also some problems that decrease verifiability (criterion #2). I will list my observations section by section.
Overall, my view is that a lot of work is going to be required to reach GA standards, but I think we should leave the review open for another week to allow the nominator or others to address my concerns. Some of my items are minor and easy to fix, but a couple of sections will require expansion, which is more time-consuming. If the article cannot be brought up to the standards in a week or two, maybe we should consider closing this review and allowing the nominator to work on the article at his or her leisure. Thanks to the nominator and the reviewer for their work here. Larry Hockett ( Talk) 07:55, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
And this is the reason why I don't straight-away give it the standard, I do agree with all of the things from the list. Editoneer ( talk) 18:36, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
New issues
Thank you for allowing me to clarify some of my feedback and for working to address it. Larry Hockett ( Talk) 23:42, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
Chidgk1, thanks for your continued work on this entry. I think it is getting pretty close to GA standards. One thing sticks out to me. Under Sources of air pollution, the sourcing for burning wood is still weak. I think you should just remove the mention of wood for two reasons: 1) It's hard for me to imagine a modern country that doesn't burn wood, so it's hardly groundbreaking news, and 2) The cited source is about the author visiting a bakery, and such a source cannot be used to support the known or unknown environmental effects of burning wood. The author doesn't get into (and isn't qualified to get into) the environmental impact of burning wood.
I'll do some copyediting, but other than that, I think we're pretty close. Larry Hockett ( Talk) 02:29, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
Rate | Attribute | Review Comment |
---|---|---|
1. Well-written: | ||
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct. | The nominator worked hard during the review process to address issues that fell under this criterion. | |
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. | The lead summarizes the body. | |
2. Verifiable with no original research: | ||
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. | ||
2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose). | The nominator remedied a few sourcing issues during the review process. | |
2c. it contains no original research. | ||
2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism. | Earwig's tool has been down for me this weekend, but I have spot checked many of the references and used Google Search to manually detect copyvio issues. I have found nothing of concern. | |
3. Broad in its coverage: | ||
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. | ||
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). | ||
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. | ||
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. | ||
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio: | ||
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content. | All images have appropriate license descriptions. | |
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. | ||
7. Overall assessment. | Good work on a tough topic. Passing. Larry Hockett ( Talk) 08:09, 26 October 2020 (UTC) |
Oh god, I've been slacking, so everything here seems to be done and Larry seems to be willing to pass this article, I agree with that. Good job both of you. Editoneer ( talk) 19:30, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
If and when this article is rated "good" it will be eligable for Wikipedia:Did you know. I think it would be nice to write something positive and encouraging. Possible completion of "Did you know that......" include:
shutting down all the 20th century coal-fired power stations in the country, creating low emission zones in cities and running electric ferries across the Bosphoros could all be part of the solution to air pollution in Turkey.
the right to clean air was recognised in the 6th century, and air pollution in Turkey could be stopped in the 21st.
The result was: promoted by
Yoninah (
talk)
12:15, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
Improved to Good Article status by Chidgk1 ( talk). Self-nominated at 08:45, 26 October 2020 (UTC).
General: Article is new enough and long enough |
---|
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems |
---|
|
Hook eligibility:
QPQ: None required. |
Overall: ( t · c) buidhe 02:10, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
(lowest estimate is 29 thousand in another source)
so how about:
I know the cars are not yet in production but as the country has so much carmaking experience already and the factory is already being built I am sure they will be in a couple of years. Chidgk1 ( talk) 06:22, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
Oh no - ALT4 is true but even more depressing. Can't we have something more cheerful? You are right that readers are unlikely to know TOGG, but perhaps that does not matter, and it might intrigue them. Chidgk1 ( talk) 09:17, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
BuidheI think ALT3 is fine - can you reconsider? Chidgk1 ( talk) 06:19, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
Yoninah ( talk) 17:45, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
Yoninah ALT6 is both interesting and might cheer people up. I know Buidhe said it is speculative, but although I am sure it will come one day I am not saying that. The sentence shows it is a proposal. Chidgk1 ( talk) 14:39, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
Electric ferryboats[88][89] and a low-emission zone for road traffic have been proposed for Istanbul[90] and it has been suggested that Turkey's vehicle tax system should be changed to better charge for pollution.Yoninah ( talk) 19:05, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
If anyone has time please add more from the 2021 OECD survey already listed in the sources section. Cite it with "edit source" and {{sfnp|OECD|2021|p=61}} or nearby page numbers.
Same for 2021 IEA report {{sfnp|IEA|2021|p=44}} Chidgk1 ( talk) 13:18, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
Such as p 176 seems to say that pollution limit depends on fuel type - is that right? Chidgk1 ( talk) 06:15, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
Hello Evrifaessa
You recently tagged the Turkish article as having a lot of problems. If there are any problems with this English article please could you detail them here. If not, as your English is good, would you have time to fix the Turkish article by translating from this article? Chidgk1 ( talk) 06:24, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
Hello Chidgk1 and friends working on this article,
I think this is a very wide-ranging and helpful article and gives a really good overview of the problem in Turkey. :)
As promised, I've read through and have a few small suggestions for improvements...
1. There are several places in the article where we refer to the World Health Organization (WHO) guidelines. These were updated in September 2021 so the references and comparisons are likely to be wrong now.
For example:
"Researchers estimate that reducing air pollution to World Health Organization limits would save seven times the number of lives that were lost in traffic accidents in 2017."
The guideline values are now lower and more lives would be saved by implementing them. So, for example, on PM2.5, the annual exposure guideline has halved from 10 to 5 micrograms per cubic metre (µg/m3). On nitrogen dioxide, the annual guideline changed from 40 to 10 µg/m3 (75% lower).
For the new guideline values, see: https://www.euro.who.int/en/media-centre/sections/press-releases/2021/new-who-global-air-quality-guidelines-aim-to-save-millions-of-lives-from-air-pollution and https://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/345334
(They're more like "guidelines" than "limits", incidentally - because they're not mandated by law and there are no safe lower "limits" for some pollutants.)
But we could change the text to a specific date so it is still correct. For example, "In 2017 for whenever, researchers estimated that reducing air pollution to World Health Organization limits would save seven times the number of lives that were lost in traffic accidents that year." That would still be true despite the changed guidelines.
2. "There is no limit on very small airborne particles, which cause lung diseases." I am not sure which particles this refers to? Does it mean all particulates or does it mean specifically PM10, PM2.5...? A bit further down the article, it says: "The air quality index in Turkey does not include particles smaller than 2.5 microns (PM 2.5)", so perhaps we are talking specifically about PM2.5 here.
3. Flue gas emission limits: It says: "mg/Nm3 (milligrams per cubic metre)" This should say "mg/m3"?? Also in the table below.
4. Industry and construction: " Although asbestos was completely banned in 2010, it can still be a risk when older buildings are demolished,[27] in dumps,[28] and in buildings in some rural areas where it occurs naturally.[29]"
The risks of asbestos are often overstated. If left alone in an old building, it doesn't really present a risk. Only when disturbed.
5. Types and levels: I think these are the old World Health Organization guideline levels, not the ones introduced in 2021?
6. " As of 2016 average PM2.5 concentration was 42μg/m3,[40] whereas 10 μg/m3 is the World Health Organization (WHO) guideline,[41]" - again, the WHO guideline is now twice as strict as this (5 μg/m3).
7. "Asthma... can be caused by nitrogen oxides." We have to be a bit careful with this. The causes of asthma are complex and interacting, and I'm not sure you can state absolutely, categorically that a specific air pollutant is a cause? Scientists are still cautious about stating this so baldly. For example, this is the sort of thing you will find in scientific papers and statements:
"Evidence suggests that allergic respiratory diseases such as hay fever and bronchial asthma have become more common world-wide in the last two decades, and the reasons for this increase are still largely unknown. A major responsible factor could be outdoor air pollution, derived from cars and other vehicles." (from https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11453319/)
"Events in early life affect the developing lungs and can increase the risk of asthma. These include low-birth weight, prematurity, exposure to tobacco smoke and other sources of air pollution, as well as viral respiratory infections." from https://www.who.int/en/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/asthma
So probably better to talk about air pollution as a risk factor than a cause. "can increase the risk" or whatever.
8. "Medical dangers" --> More references/comparisons involving the WHO guidelines. As above... "Researchers estimate that reducing air pollution to World Health Organization limits would save seven times the number of lives that were lost in traffic accidents in 2017.[64]"
9. "Breathing the air there is equivalent to smoking 38 packs of cigarettes a year".
Comparisons involving cigarettes are sometimes unhelpful/misleading because it's not always clear what is being compared. Do we mean the entire health harm of smoking the cigarettes or do we just mean just the particulates?
If you are interested, it is explained quite well here: http://berkeleyearth.org/air-pollution-and-cigarette-equivalence/
38 packs a year would be.... 38x20 in a pack = 760 a year so perhaps 2 a day? That sounds somewhere between the EU and Chinese averages, which sounds right for Turkey.
Another complication (mentioned in the Berkeley article) is that particulates released from burning fuels may be more toxic than those from burning tobacco, which also makes it hard to know if we are comparing the same thing (the point made by C. Arden Pope).
10. The History section is quite short and general and the first bit doesn't really relate specifically to the history of Turkey's air pollution. It would be very good to have some much more specific items about Turkey if there are any.
12. Sources of air pollution: It might be helpful to group this into two sections covering outdoor and indoor air pollution. At the moment, it is a little mixed up
Sources of air pollution 1.1 Traffic - OUTDOOR 1.2 Heating and cooking - INDOOR 1.3 Coal-fired power stations - OUTDOOR 1.3.1 Flue gas emission limits - OUTDOOR 1.4 Passive smoking - - INDOOR 1.5 Industry and construction - OUTDOOR
There are other indoor sources too, such as household chemicals used indoors - paints, DIY products, cleaning products, and so on.
But these are just minor improvements - and overall I think you've done a really good job on this article. 45154james ( talk) 08:37, 17 April 2022 (UTC)