Talk:Agriculture in Turkey

This review is transcluded from Talk:Agriculture in Turkey/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Chiswick Chap (talk · contribs) 11:34, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, glad to see this back at GAN in a much-improved state. I have just a few small comments remaining as most of what I had to say has been addressed.

Thanks for picking this up again so quickly - that gives me an incentive to fix it and not get distracted to other articles. Chidgk1 (talk) 08:18, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• The four images of example products in the lead don't work well - firstly they show nothing of Turkey or Agriculture, just products; secondly, they occupy much too much width; and thirdly they form a ragged line with a lot of whitespace. I suggest you just drop all four images (don't try to place them elsewhere in the article, they don't help), and maybe move "Wheat harvest in Sivas Province" to the lead, enlarged with "|upright=1.35" and the caption amended to "Wheat harvest in Turkey's Sivas Province".

I agree with you that the current formatting is rubbish and I need to fix that, but the reason I chose those 4 pics was to illustrate products for which Turkey is the world's top producer. I feel that having a lead pic of wheat would be a bit misleading because as we can see at Wheat#Production_and_consumption the country is not a top producer. How about if I try and tidy the four pics into a composite like the lead pics of Climate change adaptation? Chidgk1 (talk) 07:51, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with that is that showing four or eight or sixteen products dissociated from the Turkish agricultural land and the Turkish agriculturalists and the agricultural machines that went into producing them does precisely nothing to address the subject of this article, Agriculture in Turkey. Photos of oregano and apricots might be splendid to head up an image of Food products of West Asia or some such, but they are very close to being irrelevant, unhelpful, and distracting in this article. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:37, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly I think there should be a pic in the lead rather than no lead pic - do you agree? Another problem with wheat is that wheat is perhaps a bit too complicated for the lead - for example the government has been varying the wheat import tax recently between 0% and 130% How about having just a hazelnut pic as the lead pic as that is such a major export? If so I could try to find one also showing people - such as harvesting them. Chidgk1 (talk) 08:45, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A pic is always nice; please do not try to score points off me, we are not here to argue but to collaborate, and I am making constructive suggestions to improve the article. I am not advocating the wheat pic, feel free to choose anything that adequately illustrates the subject, which the current pics totally fail to do. The ideal would be a pic that shows a Turkish farmer with a machine and a crop or livestock in an obviously Turkish landscape. A hazelnut harvesting photo might work. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:55, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I would have preferred a hazelnut harvesting pic but I have only been able to find a drying one. I will put out a call to see if anyone has a hazelnut harvesting pic but I am not all that hopeful of a response. Chidgk1 (talk) 09:55, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Metuboy: has replaced the lead pic with one which I think is better - because the previous pic was very low tech but Turkish ag is medium tech - might be further improved in future by swapping to a geothermal greenhouse pic as that is rather a Turkey speciality Chidgk1 (talk) 10:15, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The photo was of very poor quality for a lead image, leaving aside the fact that it showed horticulture not agriculture. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:45, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Have started new talk page section below to ask for more suggestions and will link it from different places in the hope of good ideas from more people Chidgk1 (talk) 11:30, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Put hazelnut pic back until someone comes up with a better pic Chidgk1 (talk) 12:53, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Further to the above: another editor has replaced your high-quality hazelnut harvesting image with a very dull and fuzzy one of greenhouses that doesn't show humans or machines: best we put your image back for now. I see you've moved the row of four products images to "Gallery": but the article already contains multiple images of products down the right hand side; please remove the images from the article. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:21, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Removed gallery and replaced lead pic with a clearer one - but open to lead pic suggestions Chidgk1 (talk) 10:22, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks. The new image is a) of horticulture not "agriculture", so is basically off-topic for this article, and b) the inside of a greenhouse with lines of tomato plants could be almost anywhere in the world, it's quite generic, doesn't suggest "Turkish" at all. To date, the images which were visibly "Turkish" and "agriculture" were the wheat pic you didn't like, and the hazelnut harvest. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:45, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    @Chiswick Chap As horticulture is so important here I would like to include it - perhaps I should rename the article to "Agriculture and horticulture in Turkey". Chidgk1 (talk) 07:16, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Ah, I see. Of course, horticulture for crops is a kind of agriculture, so no need to rename and certainly include growing fruit and veg. I still think the anonymous could-be-anywhere greenhouse at the top is no good as the lead illustration, however. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:04, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    I have amended the caption to explain why tomatoes in greenhouses are important. However I agree the picture is not very good Chidgk1 (talk) 11:26, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• The "Regions" section doesn't work well. Please close up the list into a single paragraph as a normal sentence. That leaves the section very short; I suggest you merge it with "Soils" to form "Regions and soils". That in turn would work better if you could hint which soils are in which regions, even a little bit.

Combined as suggested and cited maps so people who are interested can look at them and see lots of detail about what soils are where. Chidgk1 (talk) 09:25, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• "Pistachios in Midyat District" is an "|upright" image.

I am not very good on pics but I added "|upright" - hopefully that is what needed doing - if not please could you explain or help Chidgk1 (talk) 08:01, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well done!

• "Black Sea tea farming in 1990" is an "|upright" image.

Added "|upright" Chidgk1 (talk) 08:01, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorted.

• Please close up the whitespace at the end of "Cattle".

Done - by the way if you prefer to make formatting or copyediting fixes yourself feel free or continue to note here - whichever method is easiest for you Chidgk1 (talk) 08:18, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, noted.

• The three subsections "Poultry", "Beekeeping" and "Fish farms" are all very short, the first two just single sentences. Suggest you merge them into a single subsection "Other livestock" or something of that kind.

Done Chidgk1 (talk) 08:24, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Please close up the numerous very short paragraphs in "Trade and economics" (to form 2 paragraphs in the section).

Done Chidgk1 (talk) 08:27, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks.

• "Irrigation" seems a bit orphaned after the research and trade sections. Suggest you move it up to become a subsection of "Environment", in which case the existing text in "Environment" should get its own subsection, "Issues" or similar.

Moved it up a bit but not really sure it should be a subsection of environment. The only existing good agriculture article is Agriculture in Wales but I cannot copy that layout as obviously Wales does not need an irrigation section! Perhaps I should move it again to be between soils and crops? But if you feel strongly it should be a subsection of the environment section I will do that. Chidgk1 (talk) 08:35, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

OK; in that case, just move "Employment" to be a subsection of "Trade and economics" (might need to rename that section) and things at least look slightly less random, i.e. you have a vague implicit grouping of physical interventions like irrigating, followed by a lot of stuff about money and jobs.

Done Chidgk1 (talk) 11:03, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Further to the difficulty placing Irrigation in the article, I guess what is missing is a section called "Techniques" or "Interventions", to contain Green revolution crops, Automation (from tractors and combine harvesters upwards), Irrigation, Fertiliser use, Pesticide use, Tillage (use of No-till in Turkey, etc), and so on. If you click on the links there you'll see there is no shortage of material on that sort of subject, and it's obviously relevant to this article. We don't need massive detail but the GA criteria do require "the main points".

Have added missing info in various places but I don't know what the structure of the article should be as I have never written about agriculture before, so I have asked at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Agriculture#Structure_of_"Agriculture_in_xxxcountry"_articles? Chidgk1 (talk) 09:49, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you MAY get some helpful advice there, or maybe not. I think if you put "Water" into the "Environment" section and say something sensible on "Tillage" and agrochemicals it'll be fine. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:58, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Have clarified that the 2 companies linked produce other stuff not just fertilisers Chidgk1 (talk) 10:10, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We need something on Tillage, and something on the "Environment[al]" aspect of the chemicals in the Environment section, e.g. usage, runoff, harm to wildlife, etc. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:47, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Done Chidgk1 (talk) 12:15, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Looking at the article's structure again, "Environment" belongs in a cluster with "Regions and soils": indeed, "Environment" could be the title of the chapter with Regions, Soils, and [Environmental] Issues as subheadings. Or something of that sort. A general principle is that articles (like books, papers, almost any well-written document actually) should be organised into around 7 major chunks (e.g. chapters), as that's about the limit for humans to grasp comfortably. Since we currently have 9 (down from 10 ... progress ...), that suggests some regrouping would be desirable.

Done Chidgk1 (talk) 11:09, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And "Water" of course belongs in "Environment" as well. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:17, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Done Chidgk1 (talk) 10:03, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• On your recent change of heading to "Water scarcity risk", perhaps "Water shortages" would be more neutral. I actually found "Water" perfectly clear (there's a heading, so there's an issue). Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:09, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Done Chidgk1 (talk) 11:47, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for delay - hope to finish by Monday. Chidgk1 (talk) 16:06, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Chiswick Chap I think I have now covered all your points. But if I have missed anything or you notice something else which needs improving please let me know. Chidgk1 (talk) 12:54, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I think we're above the bar now. I can think of a string of details that could be improved but we can leave that for the next stage. Good work! Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:47, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]