Talk:Electricity in Turkey/GA1
GA Review
[edit]| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Cerebellum (talk · contribs) 02:28, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
Good Article review progress box
|
- Lead: I recommend expanding the lead a little per MOS:LEADLENGTH, I think two paragraphs would be appropriate for this article.
- Done
- History: Needs references and some more expansion, it's jarring to skip from 1914 straight to 2015.
- Done
- Consumption: Would be good to have info on consumption over time, not just in 2019. Is the consumption increasing or decreasing?
- Demand Forecasts: So that 2019 forecast would be a 5% increase with the economy predicted for recession, and in the past several demand forecasts have been overestimates. - I recommend removing this sentence unless you can find sources for it, we need to back up the claim about past demand forecasts being overestimates.
- Generating capacity: I would be interested to see more on why Turkey has so much excess generating capacity. Could you add more information from this article?
- Distribution: The sentence Increasing Turkey's proportion of electric cars in use to 10% by 2030 would have many benefits seems unencyclopedic to me, more like a policy prescription that a neutral description of the energy sector.
- Resilience: Again, saying that the analysis should take into account the benefits sounds prescriptive to me, not neutral/descriptive.
- References: The article is well referenced, however as a rule of thumb I'd say each paragraph in a GA should have a reference, so you need one for the "Environmental impact" section.
- Economics and finance: Per WP:EL, external links don't usually go in the body of an article, I'd move the "auctions" link to the references or external links section.
- Prices: Prices to end consumers are regulated by the government and will likely be increased in late 2019.: This could be updated, did the price increases occur?
- Reference spot checks: Not done, I'll do these while the article is on hold.
Overall the article is informative and up-to-date, but it needs some work to meet the GA criteria. I'll place it on hold for seven days, let me know if there's anything I can help with as you work on it! --Cerebellum (talk) 02:59, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks. I agree with almost all your points. But can you give me a little longer to fix - maybe 3 or 4 weeks? All the good article nominations I put in gradually over a period of months are now being reviewed simultaneously. Which is good as reviewers are coming up with excellent points but to fix them properly I need time. Chidgk1 (talk) 05:21, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
- @Chidgk1: I understand, it's probably cause of the backlog drive going on right now. I hate to be difficult but I don't like it when GA reviews last longer than a week, they tend to drag on and one of the participants will lose interest and it just becomes a mess. I'm going to fail the article for now, but after you make the corrections and renominate please leave a note on my talk page, I should be able to review it for you right away. --Cerebellum (talk) 23:58, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
- @Cerebellum: OK that is fine - thanks for the offer to pick up later - and thanks again for the useful comments which will give me a lot to think about. I have to admit I did not realise how much would need doing on the other articles so yes best to fail it now and for me to come back to it when I have finished the rest. But I after I have put it back in I will not ask you straight away, but only if someone else does not pick it up in a reasonable time. Because that way it may get a fresh person on it who will likely spot different things which need improving. Chidgk1 (talk) 06:26, 24 April 2020 (UTC)