Talk:Electricity in Turkey/GA5

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Mark83 (talk · contribs) 12:34, 27 January 2022 (UTC), Styyx (talk · contribs) 14:16, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Experience from previous reviews has shown me that some people hate this review table, i.e. it can make responses harder. I just find it keeps the review logical on my end. Please feel free to answer within the table, or below the table and refer to the item, e.g. 1a.1 - I will number all my comments to allow for this referencing.

At this point I need to raise a major concern about the use of {{excerpts}}. There are a lot of sections based on other articles, only one of which is a GA. I can't find a policy or guideline on this, but surely the text could and should be brought into this article so it is stable and the qualiy of the article can be monitored and maintained? To be honest if you disagree I'm minded to move to a QF or invite you to seek a second opinion on this point. Can you give me your thoughts on this please? Mark83 (talk) 18:41, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

I guessed you might comment on this. I hope to submit all the excerpted articles (except maybe bioenergy) for GA when ready - if I submit them now could you informally review just the leads? Problem is that without using excerpts there will be loads of duplication to keep up to date. If that is not possible then I will take them out except from the GA one (thus they will be duplicate text but I wrote most of it anyway) and put them back in when the other articles are GA. Chidgk1 (talk) 19:20, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

I think the text needs to be moved over. I don't see "loads of duplication to keep up to date" and even if there is, it's a small price to pay to get this passed as a GA. See a response to my query here about attribution [1]. This would tidy up the article too, it looks messy with so main 'main' and 'excerpt' templates.Mark83 (talk) 17:06, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

OK I removed all the excerpts (except coal power which was recently promoted GA itself) Chidgk1 (talk) 06:35, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

I really, really, really do not like excerpts, even one. Fair enough it's from a GA - but I have just wasted time trying to figure out why I couldn't find the caption for an image to copy into the review below. It's because the image is elsewhere. As I said above, the maintainence argument isn't good enough for the problems it causes - particularly for editors not familiar with the excerpt template and usage. And visually it makes the formatting awful. The Coal section is just a sea of links. Mark83 (talk) 20:06, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

At the moment I think no one else but me is interested in doing much maintenance on these articles (thank you so much to Marshelec for improving them so much but I am sure you would rather be out cycling - enjoy). Of course it would be great if others pile in but I think it is their lack of interest in the subject rather than the excerpt which is putting them off. I have reduced the blueness considerably and am happy to consider any other improvements you suggest for Coal power in Turkey Chidgk1 (talk) 12:25, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Comments from User:Marshelec

I have followed the progess of this article since being a previous GA reviewer. Great progress has been made, and I think that GA status is now within reach. Here are my main suggestions for tightening up the content:

• reconcile and merge the contents of the sections Policy, and Policy and regulation

Merged - will reconcile the contents on general read through shortly Chidgk1 (talk) 08:25, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

• relocate worthwhile content from the Smart Grid section into other sections and then delete (Smart Grid is a useless buzzword in my view, and not helped by a rambling and overlong article Smart grid). I don't see a need for a Smart Grid section in this article, when the most important topics can be covered under other relevant headings.

Done Chidgk1 (talk) 08:29, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

• delete the section on Resilience. See my detailed comments on this here: User_talk:Marshelec#Electricity_sector_in_Turkey_-_resilience_section

Have amended but reluctant to completely delete as seems an important aspect - discussion moved to Talk:Electricity_sector_in_Turkey#Resilience_section in case you have more comments on resilience or others have thoughts on this Chidgk1 (talk) 09:27, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

• transfer the useful content from the "Future" section into other relevant sections. It does not seem appropriate to have "Future" as a section heading - it will get outdated too quickly, and there is already future-focussed content in other sections. Marshelec (talk)

07:03, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Done Chidgk1 (talk) 08:25, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Consumption section

• There is probably benefit in inserting a sub-section on Electrification of transport.

Done Chidgk1 (talk) 11:24, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

• The sentence beginning:"The architecture of Turkey.. " should be moved immediately adjacent to other content about electric vehicles.

Done Chidgk1 (talk) 11:24, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

• The paragraph beginng: "In 2021, there is a lot of excess generation capacity;[19] but from 2017 through 2019 less than 1% was exported.." is a bit unclear, but seems to be mostly about cross-border trade in electricity (ie export). Any exported energy appears as increased consumption. However, it may be best to make this clear by creating a further sub-section: Export, and discussing this further. It might also be appropriate to relocate some content about export, from the Trade section.

Moved part of the para to trade section. But sorry I don't understand what you mean "Any exported energy appears as increased consumption." Chidgk1 (talk) 11:26, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

• The sentence beginning: "When the lira falls bilateral contracts are sometimes unable to compete .." seems to be in the wrong place - it is not clearly about consumption. Also, two typos need fixing in that sentence. Marshelec (talk) 00:39, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Moved to trade section Chidgk1 (talk) 11:41, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Generation section

• The first sentence in this section comes from the cited source but something is wrong, or the 2021 year was really abnormal. The numbers conflict with what is stated elsewhere (eg about the proprtion coming from coal), and don't line up with the graphic alongside (albeit that it finishes in 2020). This is confusing for the reader, and needs clarification.

Thanks - have amended coal sentence. 2021 was abnormal due to drought (but drought may become the new normal) but I have not updated the graphic yet because (despite a lot of searching) I have not been able to find official figures so am not sure they have been published for 2021 yet. Although I think Ember (non-profit organisation) is a reliable source their report has lumped together wind and solar whereas I would like to keep them separate on the graphic. It may be that they have added up a lot of monthly figures, so if nothing comes out officially in the next few weeks I may try and do that too. Alternatively I could subtract the Hürriyet reported 10% wind from the Ember reported % for wind and solar. Chidgk1 (talk) 11:05, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

• I suggest that the sentence about the virtual power plant doesn't warrant being included in this section "header". It may be best to relocate to a new sub-section for Distributed energy resources or similar

Moved - if you can improve new subsection feel free Chidgk1 (talk) 11:53, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

• The sentence including "..target of 32% from renewables by 2030 .." is ok, but for consistency and for its critical importance, I recommend adding a sentence about the suggested timeframe for phase-out of coal.

Done Chidgk1 (talk) 12:00, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

• The sentence beginning: "Distributed generation over 11KW can be connected.." could be relocated to the proposed new sub-section on Distributed energy resources. Also it should be 11 kW. Marshelec (talk) 01:03, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Done Chidgk1 (talk) 12:00, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Geothermal section

• The sentence: "The country's theoretical geothermal potential is 60 GW[79] and potential is 4.5 GW." contains a vast range of "potential", and this needs clarification because it is confusing as it stands. (The sentence comes from the lead in the article Geothermal power in Turkey, so it need amendment in that article as well. The sentence should also be moved towards the end of this section to be adjacent to other content about future prospects. The final sentence could then be rationalised to reduce the duplication of the existing 2 GW installed capacity
• The sentence: "As well as the electricity sector in Turkey, geothermal heat is used directly" could be usefully expanded as: "As well as contributing to electricity generation, geothermal energy is also used in direct heating applications."Marshelec (talk) 04:42, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Tweaked the section a bit and replaced old cites with a more official one. By the way if you are interested I have nominated Hydroelectricity in Turkey and Solar power in Turkey for GA. If you don't have time to do a full review perhaps you could add short comments on their talk pages Chidgk1 (talk) 13:53, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

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.	Lot's of statements that don't seem to be integrated into the prose. More examples to follow as I continue this review, but an example: The nationwide blackout in 2015 did not greatly affect Van Province as it was supplied from Iran,[166] the EU interconnection helped restore power,[167] and more integration with other countries would increase resilience - So one single province was supplied by Iran, but a nationwide blackout is still an incredible event, why gloss over it? "and more integration with other countries would increase resilience" again, feels like a throwaway, random statement. Explained more about the blackout and trying to integrate other stuff better. Due to overfamiliarity with the text I will probably miss some so feel free to tagbomb with "clarify" or somesuch or mention here - whichever is more convenient for you Chidgk1 (talk) 09:21, 1 February 2022 (UTC) As the electricity sector in the country burns a lot of coal, the largest source of greenhouse-gas emissions is coal-fired power stations. is a bit redundant. Suggest changing to "Turkey's coal-fired power stations are the largest source of the country's greenhouse-gas emissions". Mark83 (talk) 18:03, 4 February 2022 (UTC) Done Chidgk1 (talk) 09:21, 5 February 2022 (UTC) Basic grammar error: Imports of gas, mostly for Turkey's power stations, is, is > are. Also the wider sentence is run-on Imports of gas, mostly for Turkey's power stations, is one of the main costs for the economy, and in winter electricity generation is vulnerable to reductions in the gas supply from other countries - shouldn't be a comma after economy. Should be one after winter. Split sentence to hopefully make more readable Chidgk1 (talk) 09:21, 5 February 2022 (UTC) They can be balanced by hydroelectricity. I totally understand the point here. Low wind/lack of sunlight is balanced by hyrdo power. But will all readers necessarily know that? Explained and linked to article with details Chidgk1 (talk) 07:35, 10 February 2022 (UTC) Each year, approximately 300 TWh of electricity is used in Turkey; this accounts for almost a fifth of the total primary energy consumption forgive a dumb question. So what happens the other four-fifths? Not a dumb question - it was badly worded - if still unclear please let me know Chidgk1 (talk) 08:43, 5 February 2022 (UTC) Each year, approximately 300 TWh of electricity is used in Turkey; this accounts for almost a fifth of the total primary energy consumption[8] and a little under 2 kilowatt-hours (kWh) per person per day[9] (or 3.7 MWh per year per person according to another source) less than the OECD average,[3]: 17  but half as much again as the global average.[10] is one huge run-on sentence. Split up or simplify. Split Chidgk1 (talk) 08:43, 5 February 2022 (UTC) Space heating and electric vehicles have the biggest potential for demand side response. - I think this needs to be explained? TEIAŞ introduced without a wikilink, without spelling out Turkish Electricity Transmission Corporation, or explanation of its role. Done Chidgk1 (talk) 07:35, 6 February 2022 (UTC) The whole "Demand forecast" section is slightly rambling. Please review and consider tightening it up. Done Chidgk1 (talk) 11:12, 8 February 2022 (UTC) The share of electricity in industrial energy use is expected to increase at the expense of the fossil fuel share as Turkey moves to higher tech products - perhaps even overtaking gas to become the largest share at 30% - as industrial coal burning declines and oil remains static First problem is a long run on sentence. But main problem is I am really confused - so electricity is going to increase because industry uses coal and gas instead? But I'm guessing. Could this be clearer? Also "perhaps" is another WTW. Rewrote - if still unclear please let me know. Chidgk1 (talk) 11:23, 8 February 2022 (UTC) Production and use of some types of electric vehicles, such as cars manufactured by TOGG, may increase demand during the 2020s, and Shura Energy Transition Center, a think tank, has made many recommendations about electric vehicles, such as utilizing synergies between EV charging and renewable energy integration and energy storage. another long run-on sentence. Rewrote - if still unclear please let me know. Chidgk1 (talk) 11:33, 8 February 2022 (UTC) More to follow as I work my way down.Mark83 (talk) 18:03, 4 February 2022 (UTC) In 2021, there is a lot of excess generation capacity;[17] but from 2017 through 2019 less than 1% was exported.[18] Consumption is forecast to increase. feels like a collection of random statements, not integrated prose. Fixed - if still not smooth now please let me know Chidgk1 (talk) 11:42, 8 February 2022 (UTC) As of 2021 average > As of 2021, average Done Chidgk1 (talk) 08:04, 5 February 2022 (UTC) Turkey's coal is almost all low calorie lignite, and it is difficult to burn low-calorie coal economically in very small (industrial) power stations > Turkey's coal is almost all low calorie lignite, which is difficult to burn economically in very small (industrial) power stations. The text in italics, not sure there is enough context here. Are we not talking about large scale power stations? So why comment on small industrial power generation?. Removed Chidgk1 (talk) 16:44, 22 February 2022 (UTC) Turkey has not ratified the Gothenburg Protocol, which is the international protocol which limits > Turkey has not ratified the Gothenburg Protocol, which limits... Done Chidgk1 (talk) 17:04, 22 February 2022 (UTC) Turkey's coal is almost all low calorie lignite, and it is difficult to burn low-calorie coal economically in very small (industrial) power stations doesn't flow. Removed Chidgk1 (talk) 17:04, 22 February 2022 (UTC) In 2020 29% of natural gas in Turkey was > In 2020, 29% of natural gas in Turkey was Reworded Chidgk1 (talk) 17:04, 22 February 2022 (UTC) Gas power plants are used more when drought reduces hydropower, as in 2021 - reduces hyrdopower capacity? No because "capacity" is used to describe the maximum possible power output, not the maximum for a year Chidgk1 (talk) 16:53, 22 February 2022 (UTC) In hyrdo - is "its position surrounded by three seas." relevant to hydropower? i.e. is any power generated from seas? No power generated from seas as far as I know - I did not write the sentence - perhaps the writer is implying that dams on rivers directly to the sea do not annoy the neighbours so may be easier to build, whereas dams on rivers to other countries often do annoy them Chidgk1 (talk) 16:53, 22 February 2022 (UTC) Due to changes in rainfall generation varies considerably from year to year > Due to changes in rainfall, generation varies considerably from year to year Done - if easier for you feel free to directly edit any obvious minor problems (I can always check the meaning has not accidentally been changed) - or indeed ignore anything which a copyedit would surely fix as I can always put it in to the Guild of Copy Editors later if necessary Chidgk1 (talk) 17:03, 22 February 2022 (UTC) Due to changes in rainfall generation varies considerably from year to year[a] and, according to S&P Global Platts, when there is drought in Turkey during the peak electricity demand month of August the aim of the State Hydraulic Works to conserve water for irrigation can conflict with the Turkish Electricity Transmission Corporation aiming to generate electricity. very long run-on sentence. Split Chidgk1 (talk) 17:21, 22 February 2022 (UTC) Despite droughts increasing due to climate change hydropower is predicted to remain important for load balancing > Despite droughts increasing due to climate change, hydropower is predicted to remain important for load balancing Done According to modelling by Carbon Tracker new wind power > According to modelling by Carbon Tracker, new wind power (N.B. lots of punctuation errors like this, e.g. the following sentence. Done Solar potential is very high in Turkey, especially in the south-east and Mediterranean provinces is repetition. Integrate with preceding sentence. This whole (solar) section is very piecemeal - integrate into better prose. Tweaked a bit - if still problems please let me know Chidgk1 (talk) 17:31, 22 February 2022 (UTC) on the gas bill reads a bit informal? Changed Chidgk1 (talk) 17:31, 22 February 2022 (UTC) The small-sized geothermal power plant was expanded to the country's biggest one in 2013. > The small-sized geothermal power plant was expanded to become the country's biggest in 2013. Done Turkey has no nuclear power plants but is building Akkuyu, which is planned to start generation in 2023, and is expected to last for at least 60 years a bit clumbsy. What about "Turkey first nuclear power plant at Akkuyu is planned to start generation in 2023" Yes much better thanks - done Chidgk1 (talk) 17:42, 22 February 2022 (UTC) with the 2018 construction start in Mersin Province is this referring to the same plant? Not clear. Clarified Chidgk1 (talk) 17:42, 22 February 2022 (UTC) Plans for Sinop nuclear power plant > Plans for the Sinop nuclear power plant Amended Chidgk1 (talk) 17:48, 22 February 2022 (UTC) Distributed generation over 11 kW can be connected to either the high or low voltage network, but less than that only to the low. doesn't make sense. Amended - if still unclear let me know Chidgk1 (talk) 17:48, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	This article suffers a bit from WP:SEAOFBLUE, i.e. in its broadest terms lots of links, and long ones at that. I get that it is a technical article, so will tend to have more links, but please review if the actual linked text can be lessened? e.g. air pollution from coal-fired power stations in Turkey, does it all need to be linked. And Turkey has not ratified the international protocol to limit fine dust polluting other countries. maybe just link international protocol? Another example: In 2015 there was a one day national blackout should be "In 2015, there was a one day national blackout"! Shortened both of those and several others Chidgk1 (talk) 08:06, 31 January 2022 (UTC) What are your thoughts on the lead? MOS:REFERS says "If possible, the page title should be the subject of the first sentence". Is the best intoductory sentence(s)? I've looked at other "Electricity sector in..." articles and there isn't a common approach. I do feel however the article dives straight into specifics, rather than giving an overview before getting into specifics? Happy to discuss though.Mark83 (talk) 18:03, 4 February 2022 (UTC) Wrote a new first para without numbers or technical terms, but open to more suggestions for improving the lead Chidgk1 (talk) 08:29, 10 February 2022 (UTC) many of those burning lignite are subsidized. is too much detail for intro? And leads to a "so what" question. In contrast this is covered better in the main body. Mark83 (talk) 18:03, 4 February 2022 (UTC) Not too much detail and "so what" is a good question - I have an answer - but if it is OK with you we can come back to the lead once everything else is sorted Amended to "brown coal" to make clear connection to previous sentence and expanded sentence to add another reason for importance Chidgk1 (talk) 08:36, 10 February 2022 (UTC) WP:WTW perhaps from 22% in 2020 to 28% in 2040 I cannot see a problem here Chidgk1 (talk) 08:01, 5 February 2022 (UTC) "perhaps" is inexact/vague? Mark83 (talk) 11:33, 22 February 2022 (UTC) Reworded to show that 22% is exact and 28% the estimate Chidgk1 (talk) 17:53, 22 February 2022 (UTC) Some dams are controversial, sometimes because - again WTW, vague. Amended - if still a problem please let me know Chidgk1 (talk) 18:23, 22 February 2022 (UTC) Check overlinking. (Link first and once) e.g. Carbon Tracker. Ran the check tool and unlinked duplicates Chidgk1 (talk) 18:34, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
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.	"Demand forecasts" table - high profile in article but unsourced? Done Chidgk1 (talk) 08:48, 6 February 2022 (UTC) Can you check generation data please. I get there is a 1 year difference - but the text says generation in 2021 was coal 26%, gas 42%, hydro 13% and wind 10%, and the chart say coal 36%, gas 23%, hydro 26% and wind 1%. Something is wrong surely? Did wind increase by a factor of 10? Did hydro double? It is not surprising for hydro to halve from a rainy year to a drought year, and whether coal or gas take up the slack depends a lot on their relative prices. I tried to explain that in the text somewhere. As for wind you are right there would be a mistake if it changed that much but it has actually grown fairly steadily - do you think I should see if it is possible to move the chart scale to be on the right (or both sides) of the diagram so it is easier to read off the latest year? Chidgk1 (talk) 06:44, 5 February 2022 (UTC) By the way you can a similar chart in Energy in Turkey where I moved labelling to the right - that was quite easy - so could do same with electricity chart if you think better than current labelling - but if so probably best to leave scale on left Chidgk1 (talk) 18:00, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
	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).
	2c. it contains no original research.	Not OR, just a query on accuracy: Imports of gas, mostly for Turkey's power stations, is one of the main costs for the economy, - can you elaborate please? Main costs for the whole economy? And I'm sorry I am having trouble accessing the sources. And it's nothing to do with your referencing. Yes the whole economy you understood right. I tried to explain in detail at the beginning of the "economics and finance" section. Which sources are a problem please and would you like me to put more cites in the lead (or indeed less or none)? I think there is a tool to check for dead cite links but I cannot remember - if you don't know I could ask at helpdesk. Chidgk1 (talk) 07:07, 5 February 2022 (UTC) constructing too much electricity generation capacity can be expensive, both for the government because of energy subsidies and for the private sector because of debt interest., don't think the debt interest thing is right. The reference says debt was used as a result of crises - but that won't always (or even naturally) be the case? I am not an economist but I understand the Weighted average cost of capital is becoming even more important, because almost all the cost of wind and solar is capital cost as the operation and maintenance costs are low as they need no fuel. Similarly nuclear fuel costs are low compared to fossil but capital cost to build nuclear is very large. Cost of capital is higher here than for, say, UK wind power as lenders take more risk. So I have added another cite about cost of capital. Chidgk1 (talk) 07:19, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Converting existing dams to pumped storage has been suggested as more feasible than new pumped storage. - I know what pumped storage is, needs linked/explained though. Linked Chidgk1 (talk) 18:37, 22 February 2022 (UTC) with two-thirds capacity binary and one-third flash - no idea what this means and most readers won't either. Removed as maybe too detailed for this article - it can be explained in the main article Chidgk1 (talk) 18:44, 22 February 2022 (UTC) Also in geothermal, no idea what to prevent this the fluid is sometimes completely reinjected means Amended - if still unclear please let me know Chidgk1 (talk) 18:44, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	No concerns.
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.	Fine.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Lots of work to do here. The first 4 images are not representative of the topic at all, or at least not a good way of introducing the topic at the beginning of the article. Children looking at a museum piece? If that's really how we want to represent the article, at least provide information on when this equipment was used? Where? But I think it should go. Moved lower down Chidgk1 (talk) 11:21, 28 January 2022 (UTC) You haven't established relevance. The caption needs to do that and some other things, seeWP:CAPTION. Mark83 (talk) 17:02, 28 January 2022 (UTC) Amended caption and added another pic below it - hopefully readers can now see the relevance to today Chidgk1 (talk) 08:43, 31 January 2022 (UTC) Y "Historic transformer in Bursa" - again, relevance? No longer needed? Moved lower down but willing to delete if you prefer Chidgk1 (talk) 11:21, 28 January 2022 (UTC) Establish relevance with a good caption or remove.Mark83 (talk) 17:02, 28 January 2022 (UTC) Removed Chidgk1 (talk) 06:41, 31 January 2022 (UTC) Y "Nostalgic tramway in Istanbul" - is this article about electricity sector or transport? Transport is an extremely important deep past and near future consumer of electricity so we need at least one transport pic - I would have liked to add a pic of the Togg Turkish national car but I could not find one. If you like I could swap it for a high speed rail pic caption to be done Chidgk1 (talk) 11:21, 28 January 2022 (UTC) Then make the caption establish this. Readers shouldn't have to ask you via a GA review, you know? Mark83 (talk) 17:02, 28 January 2022 (UTC) Amended caption Chidgk1 (talk) 08:52, 31 January 2022 (UTC) Y "Many electrical consumer goods are exported, such as this Turkish coffee maker" is this article about electricity sector or the Turkish consumer goods manufacturing sector? Heating water is an important consumer of electricity but willing to delete if you prefer. A pic of a combi boiler would be boring don't you think? Chidgk1 (talk) 11:21, 28 January 2022 (UTC) The caption doesn't say that. It talks about exports! And even if you make a caption along those lines, I still don't see the need for it. Contemporary articles don't have such images. Mark83 (talk) 17:02, 28 January 2022 (UTC) Removed Chidgk1 (talk) 06:41, 31 January 2022 (UTC) Y thanksMark83 (talk) 09:45, 4 February 2022 (UTC) "Renewable energy increases employment in Turkey" - this could/should maybe be covered in prose? But I think it's too tangential to need a graph? Removed for now - may want to put back in again if graph better Chidgk1 (talk) 11:21, 28 January 2022 (UTC) On reflection have put graph back in with better caption and cited as I think readers can understand the skill levels more quickly than they could from text - however I could also write some text if you think necessary Chidgk1 (talk) 10:51, 31 January 2022 (UTC) Y covered in more detail below. Mark83 (talk) 09:45, 4 February 2022 (UTC) No caption at all on 2 images. Basic GA criteria miss here. Removed Chidgk1 (talk) 11:21, 28 January 2022 (UTC) Y "Average annual wind speeds at 50 m above ground" - really not sure this is needed? Too much detail and should be at the sub-article. Removed Chidgk1 (talk) 11:21, 28 January 2022 (UTC) Y "Electricity pole and ferryboat after the 1999 İzmit earthquake" - no idea what the relevance is. Amended caption to show how relevant Chidgk1 (talk) 09:09, 31 January 2022 (UTC) I still don't see what we're trying to say here. Electricity pole and ferryboat after the 1999 İzmit earthquake - a resilient electricity system is important as earthquakes in Turkey are common - why are we referring to a ferry in the caption (and even why are we using an image in which a ferry is so promient)? Not sure of the relevance? And is the eletrictity pole the Y shaped thing in the foreground? Was it damaged in the earthquake? Mark83 (talk) 09:45, 4 February 2022 (UTC) Removed Chidgk1 (talk) 12:35, 4 February 2022 (UTC) "Mosque in Old Halfeti partially submerged by the Birecik Dam on the River Euphrates" tenuous link to the subject. It just seems like a pretty image for the sake of a pretty image. Removed other 2 dam pics and moved to hydro section Chidgk1 (talk) 11:21, 28 January 2022 (UTC) So you've removed the 2 dam pics that are actually relevant to electricty generation, and kept the image of a mosque which is not at all relevant? I'm confused. Mark83 (talk) 17:02, 28 January 2022 (UTC) OK good point - Birecik dam was not noteworthy so replaced pic with pre-Ilusu Dam pic as Ilusu has been noteworthy for decades and explained more in caption. Also added small hydro pic as small hydro rather common here Chidgk1 (talk) 08:57, 31 January 2022 (UTC) Y thanks. Mark83 (talk) 09:45, 4 February 2022 (UTC) Driverless vehicle concept in Istanbul - is this article about electricity sector or transport? The idea was to contrast with the nostalgic tram pic but willing to remove if you prefer Chidgk1 (talk) 11:21, 28 January 2022 (UTC) That isn't a reason to keep it.Mark83 (talk) 17:02, 28 January 2022 (UTC) Removed Chidgk1 (talk) 10:55, 31 January 2022 (UTC) Y thanks. Another look at images following recent changes: File:Yeniköy Power Plant Milas Muğla Turkey.jpg - caption - Yeniköy (pictured), Yatağan and Kemerköy - these are linked as power stations, but shouldn't they be captioned as such? e.g. Yeniköy (pictured), Yatağan and Kemerköy power stations have made... Done Chidgk1 (talk) 12:28, 3 February 2022 (UTC) Y "Geothermal power off the road to Ephesus" is a strange choice of words. Just put in the location. "off the road" isn't descriptive. There will be many roads this could be. Yes I struggled when I put this in - it seemed the best pic as the others are poor quality or from far away - but there is hardly any description so I don't know which plant this is - unless you have a better idea for the caption maybe I should just remove it? Chidgk1 (talk) 12:28, 3 February 2022 (UTC) Y There was location data along with the image. I've fixed this. Mark83 (talk) 09:45, 4 February 2022 (UTC) File:Hasankeyf - panoramio (1).jpg - I really don't understand the way you seem to be so focused on things impacted by dams. This article is an overview of the Electricity sector in Turkey - a few structures submerged by dams seems like such a niche area of the topic, i.e. undue focus. If it should be covered it all it should be at articles for the damns themselves/localities. Or Hydroelectricity in Turkey. Moved to more detailed article Chidgk1 (talk) 12:35, 3 February 2022 (UTC) Y Caption of Renewable energy increases employment in Turkey is not an accurate description of the image which says renewable energy can increase employment. And are we happy with the reliability of the source? NPOV? Fixed cite - yes happy with source as a serious study from reputable organisations Chidgk1 (talk) 12:48, 3 February 2022 (UTC) That caption isn't gramatically correct. But it's also not factually correct. The chart says "renewable energy can increase employment", your caption says it does. Suggestion: "According to a 2021 study, government policies supporting renewable energy may increase employment in Turkey" I'm not sure it needs a reference? (just confirming I didn't ask for that). That can be in the image information, i.e. when clicked on.Mark83 (talk) 09:45, 4 February 2022 (UTC) Removed. Looking at the details in the study if I understand it right they are saying that the governments current renewable energy policy is increasing employment but the authors are proposing changes in policy which would increase it further. I'll take the graphic out from here and hopefully explain it better if and when I get around to improving the renewable energy in Turkey article. Chidgk1 (talk) 12:44, 4 February 2022 (UTC) Control room of 2016 Zetes-3 coal-fired power station, which environmentalists would like to put in a museum - not that happy about the text I've put in italics. It reads a bit pointed/POV. I know what you're trying to say, but it doesn't feel encyclopedic.Mark83 (talk) 20:06, 2 February 2022 (UTC) Encyclopedias don't have to be humorless! But if you think it is POV and don't have a better suggestion I can remove the second part of the caption if you wish Chidgk1 (talk) 12:48, 3 February 2022 (UTC) YThis is an example of preferences. I can't impose my preferences. I wouldn't write this in an article; I know what you mean, but this feels like a newspaper or magazine article tone, not an encyclopedia. But I'll leave it up to you. Mark83 (talk) 09:45, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
	7. Overall assessment.

Mark83 So you are looking for quick replies for the backlog competition in order to finish before the end of month? Or it makes no difference? Anyway I will hopefully be able to respond quickly. Chidgk1 (talk) 17:00, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi. No, that's irrelevant. It would be in appropriate for me to either rush the review or push you for replies faster than would ordinarily be the case. Mark83 (talk) 17:19, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Mark83 I hope you are well. Thank you for your really useful comments. Are you able to complete this review? Chidgk1 (talk) 13:46, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Second opinion by CactiStaccingCrane (talk)

Hello both the reviewer and nominator of the article, I would lay down some of my thoughts about the article below. Do take note that some may be a bit off from the GA criteria.

• I think there is a huge gaps of content missing, such as effect on human health, plans for expansion, and toss in some politics as well while we are at it. This article should have good sectioning, as other articles of this kind would based on this one for reference.

Re health as that is almost all to do with coal it is covered in detail at Coal_in_Turkey#Health_and_safety Chidgk1 (talk) 14:18, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Re plans for expansion I think the Russians are still our friends so won't abandon construction of the nuclear plant - hoping for more wind and solar auction announcements - anyway if more info comes out on plans for expansion I will definitely add Chidgk1 (talk) 14:18, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Re politics there is some more in the detailed articles such as Coal_in_Turkey#Politics - but if more comes out on electricity generally (if so it will probably be about pricing) I will add Chidgk1 (talk) 14:18, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Re sections I agree it would be nice to be a model for other "Electricity sector in X" articles and am open to suggestions Chidgk1 (talk) 14:18, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

• Personally, I don't really have huge concerns about sourcing, although archiving the citations at User:IABot can be handy.

Thanks for archiving - don't know much about this - if I should set up something regular let me know Chidgk1 (talk) 14:18, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

• Listing some of the most notable plants would make the article better. For example, in the "Hydro" section, you should list the Atatürk Dam, Karakaya Dam, etc.

NOTE TO SELF - DO THIS Chidgk1 (talk) 14:18, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

• Using excerpt is a temporarily solution in my opinion. A better way to tackle with summarizing the contents of a sub-article is to rewrite it completely, and then paste that rewrite back to the lead of the sub-article.

Yes I have done that sometimes - will see what new reviewer thinks about excerpts Chidgk1 (talk) 14:18, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

• Personally, a better image that represent the electricity sector is either: a chart showing the percentage of each sector, or a huge and well-known power plant.

Ah you mean the image that appears at the beginning on mobile phones. I disagree as nowadays transmission is more important than generation I think. But if a particular generation method starts getting expanded rapidly I might change it. Hey if anyone is reading this from Togg please please put a pic on Wikimedia Commons. Chidgk1 (talk) 14:18, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

• "History" section should be placed at the beginning

Again I disagree as I suspect most readers will be more interested in the current situation - but if the new reviewer feels strongly I will move it. Chidgk1 (talk) 14:18, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Feel free, but keep in mind this will set a precedent. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 14:36, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

• General comment: Definitely good, but in my opinion the article is still falls short of GA. It is missing criterion 3a, which is the easiest to achieve out of all :) CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 12:17, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Chidgk1 Here are my comments. As a second opinion, I would decide whether the article met GA or not in order to not waste time. (seen way too much abandoned GAN) CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 13:26, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Review by Styyx

Hello! I've decided to pick this up. This is my first GA review, so make sure to slam dunk any complaints here or on my talk page in case I mess up. :)

I'd prefer not having too many excerpts. Coal power in Turkey is a GA itself, so I don't have any problem with this one. Having Wind power in Turkey in addition isn't a huge problem since there are no policies/guidelines/criterias regarding the usage of excerpts.

Lead

• There probably is a good explanation for this, but I was wondering why there are sources in the lead. Since the lead is pretty much a summary, MOS:LEADCITE says that challengeable things and BLP related material should be sourced, but I don't see either applying here.

So that if it passes to GA the lead might be excerpted elsewhere for example Energy in Turkey Chidgk1 (talk) 17:47, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

History

• I have mixed feelings about this section being at the very end, but the reasoning above seems, eh. The respective MoS doesn't say anything about this, so I guess it's not a problem.
• This section has a lot of potential to be expanded: I feel that it's missing something with covering 100 years in just four paragraphs. I have some sources below, and their main points translated into English:

• Arslan, Ozan (2017). "Tarsus elektrik altyapısı tarihine bir bakış (1906–1938)". Tarih İncelemeleri Dergisi.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)

This is mostly about the city of Tarsus alone, but the beginning includes some history too. Page 3 says that in 1875, a French firm got the tenure to install electric street lamps in several Turkish cities (all listed), but "no progress was made." In 1899 they started giving the tenures to different firms. The page also lists in what year some Turkish cities got the electric tenure (1910 to 1920). In 1914, Istanbul started producing electric with a steam driven station (page 4). Also lists which cities got a diesel-powered stations throughout 1925 and 1933. Page 5 and beyond is about the Tarsus power plant itself.

• Yurtoğlu, Nadir (2017). "Cumhuriyet Türkiyesinde elektrik enerjisi üretimi ve enerji politikası (1923–1960)" (PDF). Atatürk Araştırma Merkezi Dergisi.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)

The 19th government of Turkey led by DP started supporting the national and privatization of electricity production (page 240, need to type 14 above). According to page 243, only Istanbul, Ankara, Izmir etc. got electricity throughout the day in the 1950s, with most others having only from sunset to 10-11 in the evening.

• Erol, Emine (2007). "Türkiye'de elektrik enerjisinin tarihi gelişimi: 1902–2000" (PDF). Istanbul University.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)

This is a thesis, so should be treated with care. Page 72–73 explains that the above tenures were mostly given to "foreigners" because of the lack of personnel and funding, and cites another offline source which I do not have access to. Page 77 states that between 1938 and 1944, the government bought some of the tenures back due to some firms violating their contracts. By 1950, 23% of the Turkish population has access to electricity (page 82, this fact is already in the article).

Great I used all of those to expand the section - interesting stuff. Chidgk1 (talk) 17:49, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Sources

• Looking at the sources, all seem reliable to me. I had some doubts about AnterHaber (Ref 48), but the author is also a journalist for DHA [2], which would make this reliable.
• Nothing significant, but Ref 66 has Yeni Şafak misspelled as Yeni Şafaf.

removed yeni şafak as already cited iea which is better source Chidgk1 (talk) 17:54, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

This is what I've got for now. Pretty close,  GAN on hold. ~Styyx^{Talk? ^-^} 14:16, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Styyx Hope I have covered it all now but if I missed anything or you have any other points please let me know. Chidgk1 (talk) 19:11, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Chidgk1 The additions look really good! I can find anything on the 60s. Page 89 of thesis above says that there was no significant progress in the electricity sector from 1960 to 1963 due to the 1960 Turkish coup d'état, I don't know if that's something you may want to add. Also pinging Mark83, Marshelec and CactiStaccingCrane to see if they have any further comments. ~Styyx^{Talk? ^-^} 19:47, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Styyx Thanks for quick reply. As we already mentioned "no progress" for the 19th century I think it would be a bit boring for the reader to say it again for another time. And I don't think the history section has to mention every decade, as there have been a lot since 1902. Also there is more history in generating source articles such as Hydroelectricity_in_Turkey#History. Chidgk1 (talk) 06:16, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Oki, that's a pass! Make sure to nominate an interesting fact from the article for DYK. :) ~Styyx^Talk? 11:56, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

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

Congratulations from me as well, you did a good job! CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 15:27, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks - the subject was a lot more complicated than I first thought! Chidgk1 (talk) 17:36, 20 March 2022 (UTC)