Talk:Gas in Turkey/GA2

GA Review

Passed. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 02:51, 28 March 2023 (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

Reviewer: AirshipJungleman29 (talk · contribs) 16:59, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take this review. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:59, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Great - if there are no unexpected events I should be able to deal promptly with the defects you detect - so please don’t quick fail it otherwise I will be waiting months again Chidgk1 (talk) 17:07, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think a quickfail will be needed, but substantial improvements will be. Please also see my note at the bottom of the page. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:09, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, ~~fiction, and list incorporation~~:
Is it verifiable with no original research?
A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:

C. It contains no original research:

D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
Earwig 4.8%
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
Is it stable?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:

B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:

I will get to this review in the next week. If you have time, please consider reviewing an article at WP:GAN. I will be using this review in the WikiCup. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:06, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

I firstly have concerns about the scope of this article, Chidgk1. Why "Oil and gas in Turkey"? Why not merge with Coal in Turkey to form Fossil fuels in Turkey or some such article? If not, why not Oil in Turkey and Gas in Turkey as separate articles? Why are the two fuels bundled together?

This in turn causes great problems with MOS:LEAD and MOS:LAYOUT, as the article doesn't know what to focus on and consequently stutters. I am placing this on hold for the time being, while we have a discussion on this large issue. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:35, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think “Fossil fuels in Turkey” would be too big.

When I started this article it was just about gas. When I began to add oil I thought there would not be enough material for its own article as Turkey hardly produces any oil. If you think there is now enough material to split off oil I will be happy to do so. Chidgk1 (talk) 18:52, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I could also add other gases to “Gas in Turkey” in future if they become significant. For example if hydrogen is produced in quantity Chidgk1 (talk) 18:56, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it would be too big at all. Both Coal in Turkey and this article are around 3600 words each, and with duplication cutting you'd probably get a total of around 6500 words. If anything, per WP:SS, you could have the large Fossil fuels in Turkey article and then three more focused articles underneath. One thing is certain: oil and gas doesn't work as a compound article subject.

The layout currently is a mess, and I do think it would be best to redo the article titles. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:06, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

OK yes you are right it is a mess - I will split oil and gas hopefully tomorrow. If we haven’t made much hydrogen in a couple of years time I will consider creating a fossil fuels article as an overview and with the commonalities - for example if the economics of the 3 become similar Chidgk1 (talk) 19:25, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@AirshipJungleman29 I have now split off oil but may add a bit more info before nominating it for GA. For this gas article I guess you can continue the review here - but if you need me to resubmit let me know. Hopefully it should be easier to spot the problems now the scope is clearer Chidgk1 (talk) 13:26, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You will note that I have reorganised the layout of the article.

I am happy with most of your reorganisation but unfortunately geopolitics continues so I am going to make geopolitics and "impact and future" not be part of history. Having said that you are right that some of the content of those subsections is history - so I will move it to "history".

Also I would prefer demand to be before supply. Because, now that not much is transiting from Russia to Europe, technically Turkstream has enormous spare capacity. Of course it depends on geopolitics but you have already moved that near the beginning. So I think in future readers will be more interested to read about demand. Also a heading "Demand and supply" might wake up the bored reader expecting the normal "Supply and demand". What do you think?

Notes

Look out for WP:WTW. There are multiple instances of "as of" (see MOS:RELTIME and WP:ASOF)

I removed one "as of" but left the others as they are things which might need changing when I hopefully look at the article again next year. But if there is any particular "word to watch" please let me know and I will consider changing it.

Curious to hear your opinions on WP:LEADCITE

I have asked a question at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Lead_section#If_the_lead_is_excerpted_to_another_article_should_it_be_cited?

My opinion at the moment is that it ought to give guidance on whether leads which are excerpted should be cited. I think the guidance should say there ought to be cites but I don't think it should be mandatory. Chidgk1 (talk) 14:38, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sentences sometimes low on quality: e.g. "Thus Turkey can burn discounted Russian diesel: also it buys discounted Russian crude, refines it and sells legally (as of 2022 - in Feb 23 EU ban on direct import of products refined from Russian crude started - products of Russian crude refined in other countries are legal) as Turkish at the global price."

Ugh yes "low on quality" is a very polite way to describe that sentence - I wrote it in a hurry and forgot to fix it later. I have now fixed that and some other poor writing. By the way on copyediting generally I am happy for you to change something directly yourself if you have an immediate inspiration - if the meaning is accidentally changed I will easily spot and revert it as I know the subject fairly well by now (like whan a previous copyeditor changed "firm power" to "power firms"). Or tag any low quality sentences I miss with "clarify" or somesuch or mention here - whichever method or mix is easiest for you. Also please tag anything which is not clear meaning with "clarify" - these are hard for me to spot as I have been editing this article for so long.

I'm not sure that the lead is being organised correctly. It jumps straight from general into specifics, then back to general again. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:40, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So you think the second and third paras should be swapped or you have another suggestion?

I have reorganized the lead - any remaining problems please let me know Chidgk1 (talk) 12:57, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@AirshipJungleman29: I think I have now covered all your points above - if not please let me know. Do you have any other suggestions - for example perhaps the supply section would be clearer if I subsectioned by country?

More notes

There are many "a lot"s, which are unspecific and should be avoided.

This is one of the very few points I disagree with you on. I looked through the 5 "a lot"s and I think attempting to put a percentage or number on any of them would either be original research or would confuse the reader with false precision. There are a lot of numbers in the article already and also graphs for quantitative info. Chidgk1 (talk) 19:01, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Really? Let's take them one by one.

"households using a lot of gas can switch suppliers" why just these households? can the households using very little not switch?

Yes that is right - households using little cannot switch - however the limit has been lowered from time to time over the years so you are right that 'a lot' may not be quite right now as it is subjective - I changed to 'a certain amount' as I don't know what the exact amount is now Chidgk1 (talk) 15:36, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Since the late 1980s gas has been used a lot to generate electricity. In the early 21st century gas consumption increased a lot." what do the "a lot"s add? absolutely nothing.

Replaced with a graph Chidgk1 (talk) 16:53, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Turkstream has a lot of spare capacity as of 2022" There is precise information in the cited source. Choosing not to use it is intentionally biasing the article. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:23, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Changed to use the percent from the article Chidgk1 (talk) 17:02, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"In 2001 natural gas was legally separated from oil." what does this mean? If the first Russian imports were from 1986, was that oil and gas?

Deleted oil as it seems I was trying to summarize a source I did not properly understand Chidgk1 (talk) 19:09, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"The first imports from Russia were in 1986, and from Azerbaijan in 2007.[15] LNG was first imported from Algeria in 1994 and from Nigeria in 1999." Why is this non-chronological and split between two sentences?

Clarified - non-chronological because I thought best to discuss pipeline and LNG separately Chidgk1 (talk) 17:18, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The history section seems to be very recentism-biased—if something is recent, you have specifics and examples; if something is older, you have omissions and "a lot"s. The article later refers to the Aegean dispute. Why is that not in the history section?

Changed a bit and added links to more detail in the history sections of some pipeline articles. Unfortunately the Aegean dispute is not yet over - I hope it will become history after the election which is soon but who knows Chidgk1 (talk) 17:18, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Some analysts say that Turkey does not have enough gas storage or alternative supplies to resist pressure, and when Russia says it is closing a gas pipeline for maintenance this is sometimes intended to put on political pressure, for example a 10 day shutdown of Bluestream in 2022 at 2 days notice." Poor grammar

Copyedited Chidgk1 (talk) 17:22, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No editing has been done, just copying and moving. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:23, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I put the example in brackets - but if you think the sentence is still too convoluted do you think I should break it into 2 sentences (with the same cite after each) or maybe split with a colon or semi-colon? Or if you have a great idea go ahead and change it and I will check the meaning has not changed. Chidgk1 (talk) 15:21, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"relations with Russia are such that Turkey continues to buy both." "as such"?

No but if you have other suggestions I will be glad to hear them Chidgk1 (talk) 17:22, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"good enough that"? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:23, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Dunno if called relations “good enough that” is original research or a point of view but anyway I changed as you suggested Chidgk1 (talk) 15:14, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

TPAO is not defined at its first mention.

Done Chidgk1 (talk) 19:21, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"The Northern Iraq two parties Patriotic Union of Kurdistan (PUK) and Kurdistan Democratic Party (KDP) would have to agree for a new pipeline to take the shortest route, as it would come from wells in an area controlled by the PUK and pass through area controlled by the KDP. In 2022 the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps struck to stop a new pipeline." what does struck mean? a new pipeline from where precisely? Why is Iran involved? Assume that the reader knows nothing.

Clarified and linked to the main article about the missile strike Chidgk1 (talk) 18:38, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"400 g CO2 eq/kWh" what does this mean? why is only one of the units linked? The accompanying source doesn't have a page number.

Rewrote - if still unclear please let me know - it is extremely unlikely anyone would dispute the numbers Chidgk1 (talk) 17:24, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"solar and wind saved 7 billion dollars" what dollars

Clarified to US dollars (this was before the ruble agreement and I also mention elsewhere that pipeline gas from Iran is not sanctioned by the US) Chidgk1 (talk) 19:16, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"In neighbouring Iran electrification, for example with heat pumps, away from gas has been suggested to improve earthquake resiliance.[38]" is this relevant? also spelling

Fixed spelling. Yes this is relevent because Iran is similar to Turkey in some ways - for exampe it also suffers enormous damage from earthquakes Chidgk1 (talk) 18:52, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"In 2020 drilling ship Fatih" article needed

fixed

"Before 2023, when production from this sweet gas field in the Black Sea, starts almost all natural gas consumed in Turkey was imported." Tenses and punctuation all over the place.

Fixed

More to come, along with the source spotcheck. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:02, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - I accept almost all those points need improvement - hope to answer them in the next few days Chidgk1 (talk) 18:04, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@AirshipJungleman29: I think I have now covered all your points above - if not please let me know. Looking forward to more. Chidgk1 (talk) 17:36, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@AirshipJungleman29: Any response? Onegreatjoke (talk) 22:15, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for the delay, Chidgk1. See above for responses, and below for a source spotcheck. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:23, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ah my Turkish is not great and I mistakenly added another number to the 10 GW - now the national energy plan is in English I have cited that instead and corrected to 10 GW - well spotted thanks Chidgk1 (talk) 15:06, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@AirshipJungleman29 I have replied to your new comments above and made some changes Chidgk1 (talk) 17:03, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Random source spotcheck

19 good
58 good enough
69 source says 10GW not 12GW in article
75 good
97 good
119 good

Source spotcheck passed.

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.