# Talk:Kızılırmak Delta

We could get ideas from Dilek Peninsula-Büyük Menderes Delta National Park, which is a good article.Chidgk1 (talk) 16:45, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Text used to say
Although the coast had been expanding it is now retreating, mainly due to less sediment coming down the river due to dams built upstream.
but I changed it because I could not find quote in https://www.cevdetyilmaz.com.tr/wp-content/uploads/Bafra-Ovasinin-Beseri-ve-Iktisadi-Cografyasi.pdf If you are a native speaker please could you check Chidgk1 (talk) 08:36, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

found a cite and readded Chidgk1 (talk) 08:18, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Maybe https://www.dr.com.tr/Kitap/Karadenizin-Son-Konargocerleri-Samsun-Yorukleri/Arastirma-Tarih/Tarih/Turk-Tarihi/urunno=0001942280001 Chidgk1 (talk) 08:19, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Is the map linked from co-ords enough? Probably better to have something in article as readers may not see co-ord link  Chidgk1 (talk) 09:00, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Hi Chidgk1, here's some suggestions for improvement. 

I'd recommend looking at Glacier National Park (Canada) or Dilek Peninsula-Büyük Menderes Delta National Park as examples.
Move History up to right after the lead.
Geography should probably only be a single section with no subsections.
Ecosystems and habitats should have at most 2 sections, Flora and Fauna.
Don't try to write exhaustive lists of all the things that live in the park. Look at Glacier National Park for an example - they list some key species, but not everything.
Tourism, Agriculture, and Management could probably be lumped into a single section.
Don't worry too much about the map, the one you currently have is fine.
The infobox lists 3 different websites, really it should only have 1 official site.

Really the big thing to focus on is writing flow. Flow can be hard to describe, but you want your text to be engaging to readers. Try to create more complex sentences, link closely related sentences together, or start a sentence, then in the dependent clause give the reason for why that's important or noteworthy. Here's an example of a change you could make. 

The flow in my example goes from stating the area is important, to showing it's important by giving the number of species seen, to then backing that up with the mention of the research stations and how much banding they've done. Together, this builds the idea that the delta is important for birds. 
Hopefully this helps. Good luck and happy writing! grungaloo (talk) 16:35, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks those are useful ideas - I hope to return to this article in a couple of weeks time to come at it afresh  Chidgk1 (talk) 17:24, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

https://merip.org/2020/10/the-lost-wetlands-of-turkey/
and perhaps there should be a "people" section Chidgk1 (talk) 13:13, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Seems from https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s13157-024-01843-2 “artificial canal” means straightening? Could take pic Chidgk1 (talk) 09:05, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s13157-024-01843-2
I can only see abstract - probably need to look in more detail to see what already covered in this article and what not Chidgk1 (talk) 12:51, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

@Chidgk1: You should be able to access the source through the WP:LIBRARY (it's part of the SpringerLink collection). If not, I am able to access the source if necessary. PrinceTortoise (he/him • poke) 05:36, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

I added four inline tags. I tagged "and nature tourism became popular" as failing verification; though the source does mention ecotourism, I couldn't find a sentence that discussed its popularity. I tagged "The region occasionally experiences wildfires" as needing a better source; the current source is about one particular wildfire and does not discuss the general frequency of wildfires in the region. I tagged two captions as needing context; sea daffodils and Dalmatian pelicans are not mentioned in the article, and the caption is too short to provide the missing context.
I wasn't quite sure what to do with the "agriculture" subsection I created from what had been the "Meadows and farmland" subsection of the "Ecosystems" section. I decided to place it with management because agriculture seems like a form of land management, but that same information could also appear elsewhere. If it is retained as a subsection of management, it might need a slight expansion.
Two parts of the "Fauna" section need attention. These are the lists of reptiles and amphibians. I'll quote an earlier comment on this page: Don't try to write exhaustive lists of all the things that live in the park. Look at Glacier National Park for an example - they list some key species, but not everything. A simple listing of species rarely makes for an engaging read.
Finally, I noticed a weird thing involving the sentence "Additionally, sea level is rising due to climate change" in the lead. It didn't have a reference, and it's not mentioned in the article body. I added a reference ([1]) to show that sea level is rising in the Black Sea, but the source doesn't discuss Kızılırmak Delta in particular. The threat of sea level change to the delta probably needs to be addressed further. PrinceTortoise (he/him • poke) 07:44, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

Thanks very much. I dealt with most of these but am still chasing the current management plan, so I don’t yet know whether the govt thinks sea level will rise here and if so what they plan to do about it if anything. Chidgk1 (talk) 09:20, 27 May 2025 (UTC)
I am a bit suspicious of https://www.sosyalarastirmalar.com/articles/assessment-of-coastline-changes-according-to-bruun-rule-in-kizilirmak-delta-samsun.pdf because the journal is about social science Chidgk1 (talk) 09:32, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Kızılırmak River which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you.  —RMCD bot 18:47, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Kızılırmak Delta/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Nominator: Chidgk1 (talk · contribs) 08:27, 27 May 2025 (UTC)
Reviewer: Alpha Beta Delta Lambda (talk · contribs) 11:29, 11 August 2025 (UTC)
I'll review the article (first time reviewer, so sorry if I made any mistakes). The prose is still quite choppy from the previous GAN and doesn't help with criteria 1a. Here is a list of improvements:

which will be published shortly, Give an exact date, or remove it.
Removed - I cannot see how to send an attachment via Wikipedia email but if you or anyone else would like a copy please email me with details of how I could send the current management plan
Several short paragraphs, like the first paragraph in the History section, should be either expanded or merged with other paragraphs.
Merged
the lower lands of what?
clarified
lands lost by the empire(killed Circassians) what does that mean?
explained
I rephrased that sentence a bit, feel free to take a look. Alpha Beta Delta Lambda (talk) 10:45, 14 August 2025 (UTC)
thanks
Roma also grew tobacco. unnecessary unless they grew it near the delta (in which case, clarify)
clarified
Some of the delta's woodlands were felled in the 1950s and 1960s by whom?
the source does not say exactly but says the felling was "encouraged by the government" - so I added that
thus allowing coastal erosion Sedimentation doesn't prevent erosion, or at least the source doesn't mention that
I am not an expert but it seems alluvium is sediment in a river - added quote
I also rephrased this sentence. Alpha Beta Delta Lambda (talk) 10:45, 14 August 2025 (UTC)
thanks Chidgk1 (talk) 09:08, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
IUCN said it did not meet the criteria expand IUCN as an abberviation (it was not mentioned before), and "said" is unnecessary
done
Biology doesn't sound like the correct section name, change it to "Ecology" or similar.
done
Seagrass is a particularly important species in the marine wetlands. Importance is unattributed in the given source
Corrected and cited page
The SWOT lists is a repeat of the rest of the article
removed
Doğa, a conservationist organization in Turkey, is resurveying all Key Biodiversity Areas in Turkey. when?
dated
Buffalo breeding has aimed for more meat. clarify
clarified
To vary the gene pool needs some context: why?
linked Small_population_size#Genetic_effects which explains why
ecosystems services provided by the delta constituted over a third of its GDP. What does 'its' refer to?
According to the source "its" refers to "the delta", however as the source is so old do you think I should delete that sentence? I am tempted to leave it in in the hope of prompting someone to revise the estimate. Chidgk1 (talk) 07:20, 14 August 2025 (UTC)
It looks like the source is a primary source of the data, and it also said that "only a small portion of the functions of the delta was quantified in monetary terms." I doubt the reliability of that source and I can't find another one so I think it should be moved to the talk page. Alpha Beta Delta Lambda (talk) 09:24, 14 August 2025 (UTC)
moved
Strabo needs some context
done
The relevance of the image with the caption Sea daffodil grow on dunes is questionable
I think the plants section should have a pic - maybe I should photograph a less beautiful but more ecologically significant plant. Meanwhile can it stay in?
I would make it clear that it is relevant to the delta, at least by mentioning it (the delta) in the caption. This advice also applies to the image of a Dalmatian pelican. Alpha Beta Delta Lambda (talk) 10:45, 14 August 2025 (UTC)
I don't mean that, I just mean saying something like Sea daffodil grow on the delta or similar. Alpha Beta Delta Lambda (talk) 09:32, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
@Alpha Beta Delta Lambda Hope the captions are OK now - if not let me know Chidgk1 (talk) 09:42, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
Well I've just changed them myself. If they aren't OK feel free to change them. Alpha Beta Delta Lambda (talk) 09:52, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
Some content and references are unnecessarily repeated. Eg. more than half is farmed (with ref 6) in the lead and Most of the plain is used for agriculture. (with ref 25) in Geography section.
I fixed that one and will look for a tool to find duplicate refs but because I have read it so many times it is hard for me to spot duplicate content so if you find more please let me know. Whether the article passes for GA or not I think I should put it in the GOCE queue again as it has been changed a lot since the last copyedit they did, and a copyeditor new to the subject may spot duplicate content as well as improving flow, which is very hard for me Chidgk1 (talk) 08:52, 18 August 2025 (UTC)
Almost all nest in trees, and some are now resident year-round. is missing a verb and needs clarification
I don't understand - what is unclear please?
There are no verbs in the first part of the sentence (did you meant "almost all nest are in trees"?). Also the word "now" is a victim of relative time reference. Alpha Beta Delta Lambda (talk) 10:45, 14 August 2025 (UTC)
@Alpha Beta Delta Lambda As I am a Brit the article is written in British English in which “nest” can be a verb. But I will rewrite that sentence anyway to try and make it more readable to non-Brits. I suppose you might be American so if there is any other wording in the article which might distract Americans from the content please let me know or feel free to copyedit the article yourself (don’t worry about messing anything up as I will check afterwards and if necessary undo with an explanation). Chidgk1 (talk) 08:44, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
I think I accidentally thought that "almost all nest" is the same noun phrase without reading the previous sentence and it didn't work. Pretty sure 'nest' as a verb isn't limited to British English. Thanks for copyediting the sentence. Alpha Beta Delta Lambda (talk) 09:08, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
I'll spot-check the sources a bit later. I might need to get someone with more experience to review the review...
Overall: 

 Alpha Beta Delta Lambda (talk) 11:29, 11 August 2025 (UTC)
Source spot-check: I checked one in five sources or so:
Ref 9 doesn't have a link to a website despite using the {{cite web}} template.
corrected to "report" template
Does it mention something not in ref 8? Alpha Beta Delta Lambda (talk) 10:45, 14 August 2025 (UTC)
UTC)

Yes because the offline ref is a 700 page plan whereas the online one is the meeting that approved that plan. Ref numbers have changed as I moved a chunk of text but I have expanded the cite now numbered 11 to prove that the cite now numbered 12 is not a figment of my (or an AIs) imagination. Although not strictly necessary in the lead I will reuse the plan ref a lot in the body of the article and would also like readers of Kızılırmak River to know where they can get the plan from. Chidgk1 (talk) 10:16, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
Ref 54 doesn't seem to list every animal that is referenced.
You mean the list of amphibians? Might be that your translation software has used alternative common names - should I add the scientific names in brackets?
It doesn't mention Darevskia saxicola and Ommatotriton vittatus; there were species with somewhat-similar names but I didn't think they were the same. I think the paragraph in question is listing too many examples of species though. Alpha Beta Delta Lambda (talk) 10:45, 14 August 2025 ( Chidgk1 (talk) 10:05, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
I trimmed the list a little - let me know if I should trim more Chidgk1 (talk) 08:37, 18 August 2025 (UTC)
I previously mentioned that 16j and 22a didn't support their text
Hopefully I already fixed - if still a problem let me know
I'm going to point this on hold. Please feel free to ask any questions. I'm also going to ask for review of this review... Alpha Beta Delta Lambda (talk) 13:34, 11 August 2025 (UTC)
Hey @Alpha Beta Delta Lambda and @Chidgk1, I'll take a look over this review as part of the GA mentorship programme. Your points about the prose seem valid, so I have no issues with that part of the review. Here are some further points to improve the review from most to least important:
The lead needs some work. It should be a bit longer and summarise the material better. There is currently little to no coverage of the "History", "Plants", "Animals" and "Tourism" sections in the lead. Stuff like "The delta is home to approximately 500 plant species" should be in the lead. There are also several citations which should not be there, per MOS:LEADCITE which is one of the few manual of style sections GAs must comply with (see criterion 1b).
 Came here via the mentorship request and noted one bit where the original review was correct. LEADCITE allows either style. One thing to look out for is not making the GA criteria stricter than they are, User:It is a wonderful world. Thanks for helping with the mentorship programme :) ! —Femke 🐦 (talk) 20:41, 15 August 2025 (UTC) 
I agree that normally leads are more readable without cites but I think this one needs the cites because it is excerpted to Kızılırmak River - as I am addicted to excerpts I have done this in some other GA too. Have expanded lead a little - let me know if more would be useful as it would be easy for me to expand further. Chidgk1 (talk) 09:15, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
Make use of the "GA Toolbox" on the top right of this page. The most useful ones are "Copyvio detector" (commonly called "Earwig") and "External links". In this case, Earwig detects one instance of too close paraphrasing (see the top result) and External links detects one issue (the url in citation [39] is down and has no archive link).
I cannot see the copyvio problem - maybe it got fixed by chance in another edit - if still problem please let me know what text
It's the last two paragraphs of the section Animals. Some of that is appearently the same as ref 36. (See the 19.4% result. Alpha Beta Delta Lambda (talk) 09:24, 14 August 2025 (UTC)
@Alpha Beta Delta Lambda I fixed the copyvio. For me the external links tool did not finish after running 5 hours but I am not sure whether this is a bug - how long does it take you to run it to the end please? Chidgk1 (talk) 06:33, 18 August 2025 (UTC)
Probably is a bug... It used to work on my computer in a few minutes but it doesn't on my phone. It's fine to take the result after a few minutes. Alpha Beta Delta Lambda (talk) 10:16, 18 August 2025 (UTC)
This bug happens to me too. After like 30 seconds it rarely progresses any further, but the output up to that point is fine for detecting 99% of issues. IAWW (talk) 10:18, 18 August 2025 (UTC)
All dead cites now fixed. For info - I raised bug https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T402178
It's a good idea to keep track of how you evaluated the criteria as you go along, even if you find no issues. It means others can see you are checking everything, and allows you to keep track of the review better. For example, when evaluating the scope/broadness (criterion 3), you might write "The structure appears to follow the same structure as other GA and FA articles on this topic. I see no major omitted areas." I suspect the above issues would be more likely to have been caught if the review was structured this way.
For the spot check, it's common practice to list every citation you checked, like: [32]: Y, [33a]: Y. It is very good for transparency, keeping track of which ones have been checked, and allows an editor later on to check different sources if they do their own TSI check.
For future readers the sources I checked were 2, 6, 9, 11, 14, 19, 25, 30, 31, 39, 43, 50, 60, 64, 68, 73, 78, 85 and 90. I kept it as an hidden comment for some reason. Alpha Beta Delta Lambda (talk) 09:24, 14 August 2025 (UTC)
Note you can click "compare" to see exactly what text is repeated. IAWW (talk) 09:30, 14 August 2025 (UTC)
@Femke Thanks - now if you could just find out whether this particular delta is a carbon sink or source surely that won’t take you a minute :-) Chidgk1 (talk) 09:20, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
Hah, you overestimate my prowess in finding sources. Good chance this hasn't been studied for this particular delta. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 09:23, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
In my opinion the SWOT analysis tables are just unnecessary detail. They are just a repetition of primary data which should be cut as it is not notable.
The first point and the copyright point are the only two issues that would undermine the validity of the review. The rest I deem as quite important, but they wouldn't cause issues down the line. Note I'm being incredibly critical here. I didn't list the numerous points you did fine, and the fact that you are doing a review in the first place is amazing and better than many. GA needs more reviewers! If you have any questions feel free to ask, and feel free to ping me at any future reviews and I'll happily take a look over. IAWW (talk) 22:01, 13 August 2025 (UTC)
@User:Alpha Beta Delta Lambda I think I have now fixed everything but if I missed anything or anything further is needed please let me know - for example I could easily add more to the lead Chidgk1 (talk) 12:26, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

Apologies for the late reply; stuff happened in real life. Unforunately, I still don't think that it passes criterion 1 after these improvements. The main problems are (from most to least important):
The prose is still choppy. It doesn't flow; I don't think connectives are used correctly as a lot of 'and's in this article are used to connect two completely different statements, e.g. Whether sea level is rising due to climate change is unclear, but there is a management plan through 2034. I would suggest another pass at GOCE.
More context is still needed to make it more clear, in, for example, A project due to be completed in 2026 aims to restore grassland by having the buffalo eat juncus reeds. (how does eating reed increase grassland?)
WP:OVERCITE goes on in a lot of cases: in many cases you only need one reference per claim.
Inconsistent formatting: some time phrases are succeeded by commas while others are not.
Not sure what to do here as reviewer... Alpha Beta Delta Lambda (talk) 22:16, 22 August 2025 (UTC)
@Alpha Beta Delta Lambda I made sure not more than 2 cites together. Please could you tag all the places where more context is needed - because I know the subject I cannot spot them but I should be able to fix them. I agree about GOCE but I should fix the context first. Chidgk1 (talk) 03:57, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
That is done now. I don't think I've tagged a context needed but I found a lot of statements needing clarification. Alpha Beta Delta Lambda (talk) 19:01, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
@Alpha Beta Delta Lambda If there is anything now remaining to do apart from copyediting please let me know. Otherwise I won’t be upset if you fail it on prose. Anyway after you close this off with either pass or fail I will then ask GOCE to help make it flow Chidgk1 (talk) 09:04, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
I didn't find an issue apart from criterion 1b (note: I have removed the ruined church image because I think there are too many images already and it doesn't belong anywhere). As for 1b:
lead sections  (previously ) I think it is a bit like a promotional advertisement for travelling, at least in the first paragraph. Length is on the short side but that's fine for this article.
@Alpha Beta Delta Lambda I have expanded and toned down the lead a little. I am very tempted to add more criticism to the lead by whinging that the government still have not put the management plan which started in January onto the internet - would that be OK with you or do you have any other specific suggestion for the lead? Chidgk1 (talk) 07:54, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
layout  Ordering is correct and no super-short/long paragraphs. An optional suggestion would be a "see also" section.
purposes.

I think not necessary as other deltas are already linked from the template at the bottom but if you have a suggestion for what to put in "see also" let me know.Chidgk1 (talk) 08:32, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
words to watch  A 2019 study said the over 50 km of beach provide great potential for sea tourism need to be changed. Also I think the delta is now a quaternary plain can be improved. There are also a lot of "importants" for editorializing purposes.
doneChidgk1 (talk) 08:32, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
fiction  Not applicable
list incorporation  Not applicable
Happy to pass once the lead and WTW is fixed. Alpha Beta Delta Lambda (talk) 12:29, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
@Alpha Beta Delta Lambda I hope you continue to do GA reviews. If so you will probably find that many nominators like to be asked before reviewers change the articles themselves. For myself I am happy for reviewers to make as many copyedits as they like but prefer they explain anything else in the review (such as the reason they think a picture should be removed) rather than changing it themselves Chidgk1 (talk) 08:41, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

Sorry, that was my bad. The reason was I thought there are too many images in this article, but feel free to add it back. As for the lead, it depends on how many reliable sources are there. You would need to add it into the body if you added it to the lead.
There seems to be a few more words to fix: the two mentions of traditionally and the "now" in the delta is now a plain should be replaced with a time (see MOS:RELTIME). Hopefully there isn't more. Alpha Beta Delta Lambda (talk) 13:17, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
@Alpha Beta Delta Lambda Sorry I don’t understand what you mean about “traditionally” and “now”. I understand your point about the ruined church picture - you thought it might not be relevant to the text as my caption was not informative. I didn’t really explain it properly in the caption for fear of attracting edit warring Greek and Turkish nationalists but I will now write a better caption and deal with any nationalists if and when they come. Chidgk1 (talk) 15:23, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
What I meant was please replace the words "traditionally" and "now" with an explicit date (a time period is fine), per MOS:RELTIME. Alpha Beta Delta Lambda (talk) 15:27, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
@Alpha Beta Delta Lambda I am sorry I don’t agree with that as even if the sources do give a time range I feel it would make the sentences less readable. I won’t complain or be upset if you fail the article but I think you should now make a decision one way or the other. I did once nominate an article for FA but the assessment got so bogged down with copyediting points that I gave up and vowed never to nominate for FA again but only for GA so that I would have time to edit more articles. I am happy that the article has been improved enormously thanks to you so I will take a break from it soon and maybe come back to it in a few months time if I feel inspired Chidgk1 (talk) 17:51, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
Uhh I actually don't know whether it meets that criterion now. I'm going to ask for some advice: @It is a wonderful world: (sorry for the inconvenience, both) Alpha Beta Delta Lambda (talk) 18:20, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
Re “traditionally” I just checked the "full text" link top right of https://search.trdizin.gov.tr/en/yayin/detay/364415/kizilirmak-deltasinda-yazilmamis-kanunlar-bir-sulak-alanin-korunmasinda-geleneksel-ekolojik-bilginin-rolu (English starts page 321 and is only a few pages) but unfortunately I could not find any info on when the traditions started. Chidgk1 (talk) 06:38, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
Sorry but this is a case of  I have no idea of whether the guideline applies here or not... Alpha Beta Delta Lambda (talk) 20:55, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
Hey @Alpha Beta Delta Lambda, sorry for being so slow to respond, I was on holiday but am back now. Technically MOS:RELTIME is part of MOS:WTW, and full compliance with that is required to meet GA criterion 1b. That being said, in my opinion it is a relatively minor issue, so I don't think many people would oppose you passing if you have found no other GA-relevant issues with the article. Let me know if you would like me any more advice or if you want me to check anything. IAWW (talk) 16:48, 4 September 2025 (UTC)
@It is a wonderful world: thanks! It looks like those words are actually used in the sources (at least according to a translator) or , so I'm happy with that now. Passing now, well done @Chidgk1! I hope you'll continue working on this article. Alpha Beta Delta Lambda (talk) 17:41, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

A 2009 study estimated that ecosystems services provided by the delta constituted over a third of its GDP. 
but does anyone have a more recent estimate? Chidgk1 (talk) 08:28, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

The Kızılırmak Delta Wetland Management Plan (2025-2034) Plan Decisions from page 324 to 326 - anyone like to summarize and add - if not I hope to get round to it eventually 
1. The map showing the "Kızılırmak Delta Wetland of International Importance Protection Areas," approved by the National Wetland Commission under the coordination of the General Directorate of Nature Conservation and National Parks in accordance with the provisions of the Regulation on the Protection of Wetlands, and the implementation principles defined in the Regulation, are integral to the Management Plan. Following approval of the Management Plan, the Wetland Protection Areas map will be incorporated into spatial plans of all scales (Environmental Plan, Master Development Plan, Implementation Development Plan) in accordance with Article 25 of the Regulation on the Protection of Wetlands, published in the Official Gazette No. 28962 dated April 4, 2014.
2. Forestry, gathering, and aquaculture activities (such as the method, timing, and amount of cutting for reeds, goga, and sedge, etc., within the framework of the Regulation on the Protection of Wetlands), as well as traditional grazing, which has been practiced within the Ramsar Site until today, will continue as is, without prejudice to the opinions of other relevant institutions and organizations.
3. The opinion of the Regional Commission for the Protection of Natural Assets will be sought for all activities to be carried out in the natural protected areas within the area.
4. Aquaculture activities related to aquaculture activities in the Kızılırmak Delta Wetland, including fishing and inspection, will be carried out by the Samsun Provincial Directorate of Agriculture and Forestry and the Bafra, Alaçam, and Ondokuzmayıs District Directorates of Agriculture and Forestry, in accordance with Law No. 1380 on Aquaculture.
5. DSI will conduct cleaning of canals, with or without projects, within the Controlled Use Zone and Buffer Zone throughout the year, provided that the canal bottom elevation is not exceeded.
6. Cleaning of projected channels within Sensitive Protection and Sustainable Use Areas shall be carried out in accordance with the recommendations of relevant institutions, provided that they do not exceed the base elevation, except during the bird breeding season, between March 1st and July 15th. 324
7. Cleaning of non-projected channels within Sensitive Protection and Sustainable Use Areas shall be carried out in accordance with the recommendations of relevant institutions, after the project has been designed or approved by the State Hydraulic Works (DSI), provided that they do not exceed the base elevation, except between March 1st and July 15th.
8. In cases of natural disasters (floods, inundations, etc.), channels (with or without a project or natural) may be opened directly, in accordance with the instructions of the local administrative authority, to ensure the safety of life and property of local residents.
9. Traditional fishing activities, which have continued to this day, will continue within the Kızılırmak Delta Sustainable Use Area.
10. The Kızılırmak Delta Wetland Management Plan replaces the Samsun Bafra Kızılırmak Delta Wildlife Development Area Management Plan.
11. Revisions to existing projects, new projects, maintenance, repair, and renovation of facilities, and site preparation work for structures and facilities within the Ramsar Site owned or allocated by the General Directorate of Nature Conservation and National Parks shall be carried out or commissioned upon the approval/concurrence of the General Directorate of Nature Conservation and National Parks.
12. New projects planned within the Ramsar Site shall be carried out or commissioned upon the approval/concurrence of the General Directorate of Nature Conservation and National Parks.
13. Work and procedures related to potential epidemics and national security issues within the Wetland Protection Zones in the Kızılırmak Delta shall be carried out with the approval of the Minister.
14. The approval of the relevant administration is required for any activity in aquaculture breeding and production areas within the Kızılırmak Delta Ramsar Wetland. Discharges that harm aquaculture production areas are prohibited under the provisions of Fisheries Law No. 1380.
15. Discharges to wastewater collection areas with an equivalent population of less than 2,000 must be subject to the provisions of the Water Pollution Control Regulation (WPRCR), and discharges to wastewater collection areas with an equivalent population of 2,000 or more must be subject to the provisions of the Urban Wastewater Treatment Regulation (WATR).
16. If wastewater from provincial municipalities is connected to the sewer system, the relevant provisions of the Water Pollution Control Regulation must be followed.
17. If wastewater generated in wetlands within the boundaries of a metropolitan municipality is connected to the sewer or collector line, the procedures must be followed in accordance with the "Sewer Connection Discharge Regulation," issued by the general directorates of water and sewerage administrations with the approval of our Ministry, in accordance with Law No. 2560 on the Establishment and Duties of the Istanbul Water and Sewerage Administration General Directorate (İSKİ Law).
18. These wetland management plans and plan decisions are valid until the management plan is revised. Chidgk1 (talk) 10:37, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

If any of you have any influence on Wikimedia Commons could you possibly push https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T213585#11244023
as that might incentivise me or someone else to add more alt text 
(default captions work fine if you allow a few minutes after you write on commons and click "use this file")
Chidgk1 (talk) 09:07, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

I am now unsure whether it is worth the effort of writing alt text as perhaps AI will simply describe the pics in future Chidgk1 (talk) 06:04, 16 October 2025 (UTC)
See MOS:ALT as guidance. Flibirigit (talk) 17:48, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

New pic from bridge might be useful if it is now channalised as we could compare. Also river mouth fisherman shelter. Chidgk1 (talk) 10:30, 5 October 2025 (UTC)