Talk:Forests in Turkey/GA2

GA Review

Passed. Recon rabbit 15:16, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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

Nominator: Chidgk1 (talk · contribs) 14:43, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Reconrabbit (talk · contribs) 19:40, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm happy to start working on the review of this article against the GA criteria. I have done some copyediting to the article prior to starting this; if there is anything that was out of line, please correct it and we can discuss it here. Recon rabbit 19:40, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Chidgk1: Apologies for my slowness, source checking is something I procrastinate on a lot. Plus work, etc, has been making me want to contribute elsewhere in less committed roles. I think I am Nearly finished here though, all that needs to be done is addressing that one sentence. Also noting that I reviewed the concerns of the previous GA review and found most obvious issues corrected. Recon rabbit 17:45, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think that this article now meets the GA criteria. Recon rabbit 15:15, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Prose

Straightforward to read for the most part.

The 2023 GDF activity report says “In addition, with the aim of planning and implementing forest areas in an organized and sustainable manner under the name of "Nation Forest" with a new recreation approach, Amasya National Forest, Izmir National Forest, Kastamonu National Forest, Kayseri National Forest, Mersin National Forest, Kocaeli National Forest, Batman National Forest. Forest, Manisa National Forest and Siirt National Forest facilities were realized.”,[1]: 43 but what this means in practice is unclear. If the meaning is unclear, maybe it is best to not include this at all.

I have removed my snarky comment. Chidgk1 (talk) 17:50, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Recreation projects can also be controversial. This is vague - what makes it controversial?

Unfortunately the source does not say what the project was or why people were protesting but if I find more info I will extend the sentence.Chidgk1 (talk) 17:50, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If this is an event that happened only once, I would guess it is not worth mentioning, and better off removed. I would only keep this mention of "recreational developments" being controversial / a threat to forests if it was a chronic issue. Recon rabbit 17:45, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Removed Chidgk1 (talk) 18:28, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm now seeing the section "City forests and urban trees", which is a section with one sentence. I would make this a sub-heading in a different section, one of the two following it perhaps. Recon rabbit 18:54, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Chidgk1 This is the last note I have: Find a way to combine the above section "City forests and urban trees" as well as "Old-growth forest" with other sections. They would be better as sub-headings than main section headings because of the specificity and smaller size of the content. Recon rabbit 20:38, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes you are right - done Chidgk1 (talk) 07:47, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

References

Layout: Looks fine, I have nothing to note. Y
Copied content: Only direct attributed quotations. Y

Spot checking

I will check 12 sources (15%). Based on this revision:

[4]: Y
[17]: Y
[41]: Y
[37]: ~~N The linked website has no information.~~ Link fixed Y
[30]: Y It's a student newspaper, so there should be a better source to back up the claim that these are temperate rainforests (I am sure they exist).
[55]: Y Nice visualizations here, but a bit busy. At least it's a secondary source.
[15]: Y but I would note that this source is in Turkish (language=tr).
[60]: Y ~~AA is not a great source, but if there aren't any better references, it is fine as a source for this less controversial detail (that the forest has regrown more than it has burned).~~ Corrected
[62]: Y
[67]: Y
[74]: Y
[78]: Y

Fixed - see change comments for details Chidgk1 (talk) 18:39, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. For some reason the link to ogm.gov.tr doesn't work for me right now. I will fix some of these links. Recon rabbit 18:54, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I was trying to run the expand cite tool but it is hanging - might try again in our morning when Americans are asleep Chidgk1 (talk) 19:06, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Scope

Broad: The "Ecology" section does not have much text. The listing of species from "Distribution of forests" would probably be placed better here.

Done Chidgk1 (talk) 17:50, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Narrow: As much information has been provided as can be gleaned from the journal articles and other documents without going excessively in depth, e.g. without needing detailed statistics on each and every forest. Y

Stability

Neutrality: ~~There were some subjective descriptions in this article, and they will be addressed with the prose review. Y~~
Edit warring: There has been no disruption to speak of, almost all of the edits to this article were from the original creator. Y

Images

Free/Fair use: Images are all licensed or available for free use.
Relevance: There are quite a lot of images near the end of this article. I would remove some and keep only the most relevant ones, or move some to better fit the article (I do not see "road sign" and "Foreigners visiting Belgrad Forest in Istanbul in the 1920s" as very relevant, and the forest fire image can be moved to "climate and forests".

I would like to keep all the pics if possible but happy for them to be moved and/or resized, recaptioned or otherwise improved. I have made a few changes. Chidgk1 (talk) 14:52, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The placement of images is much better now, since they are not all bunched at the bottom and running into the "references" section. Recon rabbit 17:52, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Good Article review progress box

Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV ()

3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant ()

Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

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.