Toolbox |
---|
![]() | This peer review discussion is closed. |
I've listed this article for peer review because it is obvious that Turkey will ratify the Paris Agreement soon, so when that is in the news hopefully people will read this article or its Turkish equivalent.
All suggestions welcome but in particular on 1) improving the overall flow (i.e. storytelling) and perhaps structure 2) stuff which is obviously not "featured" standard 3) source review of Turkish sources listed on talk page.
Since the previous FAC I have removed some dubious sources and improved the diagrams.
Thanks, Chidgk1 ( talk) 17:13, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
From Wikipedia:Peer review/Edward Hewitt Nichols/archive1.
~
Aseleste (
t,
e |
c,
l)
18:51, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
Pending...
The most obvious things to fix are the broken references. The article is in Category:Pages with reference errors, Category:Pages with broken reference names, Category:Harv and Sfn no-target errors, and Category:CS1 errors: missing periodical. Try to get the article out of these categories first.
You should standardize the citation style as the article right now is mixing short citations and full citations. See WP:CITESTYLE.
This is a sentence.
[1]: 123–127 This is another sentence.
[1]: 267
It would be ideal to specify the variant of English used with templates in Category:Use English templates.
The lead may need changes. The part about how cows and cars produce greenhouse gases is too generic (i.e. the content can be put into leads of other "Greenhouse gas emissions by XXX" article and still make sense) and thus cannot adequately summarizes the actual content in the article. Try to make the lead focus on the relationship between greenhouse gas emission and the country. There are obvious major omissions from the lead like economics and politics. You may also want to highlight some controversies in the lead (the politics section is the most likely place you find them).
You may want to request another copy edit again considering there have been substantial changes.
These are my general comments. If you want me to look into specific areas, ask. ~ Aseleste ( t, e | c, l) 02:30, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
Hi Chidgk1, it's been over a month since the last comment in this PR. Are you interested in keeping this open? Z1720 ( talk) 21:42, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
Hello HJ, hope you are well, it's been a while but might you still be available to help improve the flow and storytelling of this article? Of course any further comments from others on all aspects welcome (I know I have not finished standardizing cite style). Chidgk1 ( talk) 10:46, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
Toolbox |
---|
![]() | This peer review discussion is closed. |
I've listed this article for peer review because it is obvious that Turkey will ratify the Paris Agreement soon, so when that is in the news hopefully people will read this article or its Turkish equivalent.
All suggestions welcome but in particular on 1) improving the overall flow (i.e. storytelling) and perhaps structure 2) stuff which is obviously not "featured" standard 3) source review of Turkish sources listed on talk page.
Since the previous FAC I have removed some dubious sources and improved the diagrams.
Thanks, Chidgk1 ( talk) 17:13, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
From Wikipedia:Peer review/Edward Hewitt Nichols/archive1.
~
Aseleste (
t,
e |
c,
l)
18:51, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
Pending...
The most obvious things to fix are the broken references. The article is in Category:Pages with reference errors, Category:Pages with broken reference names, Category:Harv and Sfn no-target errors, and Category:CS1 errors: missing periodical. Try to get the article out of these categories first.
You should standardize the citation style as the article right now is mixing short citations and full citations. See WP:CITESTYLE.
This is a sentence.
[1]: 123–127 This is another sentence.
[1]: 267
It would be ideal to specify the variant of English used with templates in Category:Use English templates.
The lead may need changes. The part about how cows and cars produce greenhouse gases is too generic (i.e. the content can be put into leads of other "Greenhouse gas emissions by XXX" article and still make sense) and thus cannot adequately summarizes the actual content in the article. Try to make the lead focus on the relationship between greenhouse gas emission and the country. There are obvious major omissions from the lead like economics and politics. You may also want to highlight some controversies in the lead (the politics section is the most likely place you find them).
You may want to request another copy edit again considering there have been substantial changes.
These are my general comments. If you want me to look into specific areas, ask. ~ Aseleste ( t, e | c, l) 02:30, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
Hi Chidgk1, it's been over a month since the last comment in this PR. Are you interested in keeping this open? Z1720 ( talk) 21:42, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
Hello HJ, hope you are well, it's been a while but might you still be available to help improve the flow and storytelling of this article? Of course any further comments from others on all aspects welcome (I know I have not finished standardizing cite style). Chidgk1 ( talk) 10:46, 20 June 2021 (UTC)