Talk:Electricity in Turkey/GA3

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Ita140188 (talk · contribs) 03:19, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I will start the review soon. --Ita140188 (talk) 03:19, 21 December 2020 (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

Previous reviews

The article has already been through 2 GA reviews. I will summarize here the points (if any) that are still not resolved.

The only comment from previous reviews that appear not solved is the one regarding sectioning from Talk:Electricity sector in Turkey/GA2 which I mention below. --Ita140188 (talk) 13:05, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

I will present here my comments.

"See also" section should be before "References".

moved link to body of article and deletedChidgk1 (talk) 06:53, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Text seems to be written to accomodate links and other technical aspects, which distracts from the content. For example, the sentence "In the 2010s imports of gas, mostly for power stations in Turkey, was one of the main import costs for the economy of Turkey." would be clearer as: "In the 2010s imports of gas, mostly for power stations, was one of the main import costs for the the country." Also, there is no need to add "electricity sector in Turkey" in the lead in order to have the title in bold (not a requirement per MOS:BOLD).

Lead:

As in the previous comment, the flow could be improved by removing forced sentences to follow links.
There should be no new information in the lead, which should only be a summary of the article (see MOS:LEAD). As of now, many details are only presented in the lead.

Lead info now all in body - I think - if not please let me know. Chidgk1 (talk) 08:15, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think the lead could also be made more compact, for example moving some details (such as excess generation capacity) in the relevant section.

History: Section is clear and concise. However, I think it can be expanded, even just by using existing references.

Done

Consumption:

The section is heavily focused on demand forecasts, but there is no context to as why this is so relevant. It would be helpful to have some more context.

Explained why demand forecasts so important

Topics change suddenly between paragraphs without introduction (for example the last paragraph suddenly talks about EVs). This makes reading difficult. An alternative to some intro text would be to have subsections if some more content is added.
"There is a virtual power plant which includes geothermal, wind, solar and hydro": no indication of notability/size.

Explained notable as first in country

Generation:

Units should generally be given when citing numbers, such as 89.2 TWh (using abbreviation for terawatt-hour).
"Speaking in July 2020 Energy Minister Fatih Dönmez said that half of the country's electricity was generated by renewables,[39] but as rainfall for hydropower in Turkey varies annually it is not yet clear whether this is true longterm." I think this sentence can be removed as unnecessary after giving specific numbers.
The text is sometimes not clear, and it takes effort to understand. For example "As well as the state owned Electricity Generation Company (EUAŞ) there are many private companies with over 80% of the market" would be clearer as (for example): "The state owned Electricity Generation Company (EUAŞ) is the largest electric power company in the country, with 20% of the market. Private companies account for the rest" It's also not clear how the rest of the sentence connects to it ("with solar targeted for 13 GW and wind power in Turkey for 16 GW by 2027")
The section could be expanded and divided into subsections such as "Coal and gas", "Renewable energy", "Nuclear".

Ita140188Those details are already covered in other articles which I have now linked as "Further information"

As suggested in the previous review, the sections 'Trade', 'Transmission', and 'Distribution' should be combined into one section. I also suggest to split the section 'Trade' into 'Electricity market' and 'International exchanges' to better describe the topics.

Ita140188 But I cannot think how to title such a combined section - any ideas? Chidgk1 (talk) 08:15, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Health and safety and resilience: This section seems to talk about very different things: one is the environmental impact of electricity generation (which should be a section by itself) and the other is resilience, which could be another subsection of the distribution/transmission section suggested in the previous point.

Added greenhouse gas section

Policy and regulation

"The objectives are developing local manufacturing capacity, ..." It is not clear what this sentence refers to, and who is saying this. Is it the government or the researchers?

Clarified

It may be better to split this into subsections "Incentives and subsidies" and "Renewable energy targets".

Economics and finance

As noted elsewhere, it is helpful to organize the content in a coherent flow, and introduce a topic at the beginning. For example, the first sentence "As elsewhere new renewables are auctioned." seems a bit out of nowhere considering that the section is about Economics and finance in general.
The section talks about the Electricity market and liberalization, energy subsidies, international exchange, and energy security. I think most of the material in this section should be moved to the relevant existing section on the topic. This section could be focused on energy security, which is the only topic not covered elsewhere.

Energy security is covered in Energy in Turkey

Future: This section is a bit unfocused. It seems to talk about a single project. On the other hand, the Akkuyu Nuclear Power Plant, one of the largest nuclear plants under construction in the world, is never mentioned directly in the article.

Added Akkuyu

Just a comment: the pictures already present are very interesting, it would be nice to add a few more.

Done

Overall the article is concise, up to date, and well referenced. However, it would greatly benefit from a better organization of content (through fewer sections and more subsections), clearer prose, and some expansion of some sections. --Ita140188 (talk) 13:12, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ita140188 Thanks for those very useful comments. I will likely take a break for a day or 2 over Xmas but hope to go through them all before the end of the year. Once I have done that I hope you will read it afresh and say whether it ought to be put in the queue for a copyedit by the Guild of Copyeditors. If you are celebrating Christmas have a good one. Chidgk1 (talk) 15:16, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ita140188 Happy New Year. Whilst looking through this article I have noticed some contradictions in the figures between infobox, lead and body- for example consumption per person. I suspect this might be to do with some cites being gross and others net, but I have not properly figured it out yet. I think by the time I have documented that I will be too fed up with (and too close to) the article to do a good copyedit - so I think it will be best if you fail it on prose (and maybe mos) and I put it in the queue at GOCE. But now I have added more history, greenhouse gases, pics and a few other small bits like Akkuyu can it pass on broadness? If not please let me know why not so I can add the required info. Chidgk1 (talk) 08:05, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Chidgk1: Happy new year! Thank you for your edits. I think the article is comprehensive enough for GA, although I think this is the most difficult thing to evaluate. On the other hand, most of my comments on section organization and prose have not been addressed. Are you planning to work on it further? --Ita140188 (talk) 00:12, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ita140188 I think I need a break from this article. So please fail it on organization and prose and I will put it in the GOCE queue. Hopefully, as the subject is interesting for me, before they get round to copyediting it I will take a fresh look and fix the numerical discrepancies and add some 2020 stats. Thanks again for all your useful work on this - your comments will not be wasted. Chidgk1 (talk) 05:55, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Thank you for the work until now, and let me know if you need any help. --Ita140188 (talk) 08:19, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]