Talk:Renewable energy in Turkey/GA3

GA Review

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: DimensionalFusion (talk · contribs) 16:46, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

I will be referring to the previous GANs (1 and 2) as well as my other review (Talk:Oil in Turkey/GA1 whilst reviewing this article. After looking through the article, I see no reason to quickfail so I'll get straight into it.

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	The prose is clear and broadly understandable to a wide audience, SPaG are correct.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	The lead is appropriately long and descriptive for the article size and matches MoS for layout.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	The article provides a list of specific references in the reference section which is consistently formatted
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	So the article has lots of citations (excellent), and there don't seem to be any bare URLs I can see
	2c. it contains no original research.	No OR, all claims are backed up by citations inline
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	After running through plagiarismdetector, I haven't seen any non-circular plagiarism nor copyvios
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	The article addresses the main aspects of the topic appropriately
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	The article focuses on the main aspects of the topic and does not go into unnecessary detail.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	The article does not give any undue weight to any one opinion and follows NPOV
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	The article does not have any edit warring that I can see
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	All images are tagged with correct copyright status
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Images are appropriately captioned and suitable for the article content.
	7. Overall assessment.	Article has definitley improved in the like 6 months since it was last GA reviewed

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.