Talk:Energy in Turkey/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: SilkTork (talk · contribs) 18:06, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Closed as fail. SilkTork (talk) 09:45, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

I'll start reading over the next few days and then begin to make comments. I am normally a slow reviewer - if that is likely to be a problem, please let me know as soon as possible. I tend to directly do copy-editing and minor improvements as I'm reading the article rather than list them here; if there is a lot of copy-editing to be done I may suggest getting a copy-editor (on the basis that a fresh set of eyes is helpful). Anything more significant than minor improvements I will raise here. I see the reviewer's role as collaborative and collegiate, so I welcome discussion regarding interpretation of the criteria. SilkTork (talk)

Tick box

GA review – see Wikipedia:Good article criteria for detailed criteria

1. Is it well written?

   A. Prose is clear and concise, understandable, without spelling and grammar errors:

   B. Complies with MoS guidance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. Has an appropriate reference section:

   B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

   D. No copyright violations nor plagiarism:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain media such as images, images, video, or audio to illustrate the topic?

   A. Media are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Media are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

Comments on GA criteria

Pass

• Images have appropriate licenses. SilkTork (talk) 18:19, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
• No edit warring. Article is stable. SilkTork (talk) 18:20, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
• There is an appropriate reference section. The External links section may have a little too many links. See Wikipedia:External links. SilkTork (talk) 18:22, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

I have now removed some external links. Chidgk1 (talk) 11:12, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

I shall, hopefully, be doing some more work on this review in the next day or two. SilkTork (talk) 12:20, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

• No evidence of bias. No evidence of original research. Article follows sources. SilkTork (talk) 09:42, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
• No evidence of copyvio. SilkTork (talk) 10:11, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
• Article is richly sourced to appropriate sources. SilkTork (talk) 10:15, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Query

• "Turkey consumes over six exajoules of primary energy per year" - What does this mean? Is that a lot, a little, about as expected for the size and development of the country? It's a statistic or piece of data, but per WP:RAWDATA: "To provide encyclopedic value, data should be put in context with explanations referenced to independent sources." Also, why is this information not provided elsewhere in the article? Per WP:Lead: "significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article." Also per MOS:LEADSENTENCE: "The first sentence should tell the nonspecialist reader what, or who, the subject is. It should be in plain English." I'm not sure what the best approach would be - though when doing a little bit of research most articles seem to lead with Turkey being "one of the fastest growing energy markets in the world"(Mondag) IEA, Turkish government. That information is present in the lead - though it is in the third sentence: "In the three decades from 1990 annual primary energy supply tripled", and again doesn't quite put it into context. For example, if every other country in that same period had quadrupled their primary energy supply, then Turkey would be lagging behind the world. To understand the significance of the tripling statement the reader would be expected to know how other countries are performing. I had a look and found these sources: EIA - this is being used on the Energy in Germany article to support the statement: "Germany is sixth in global energy consumption between 2004 and 2007." There's also this from IEA which has Turkey as one of the "largest ten energy-consuming OECD countries". See what you think. SilkTork (talk) 10:46, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

What some other Wikipedia energy articles say: Energy in India, Energy in Finland, Energy in France, Energy in Germany. There is no standard approach, and those articles are not fully developed, but they are explaining the data and information by putting it into context. Here is a wonderful article on fuel/energy: Ethanol fuel in Brazil - it gives understandable summary first: "Brazil is the world's second largest producer of ethanol fuel. " Then it gives the data followed by an explanation of the data: " Brazil produced 26.72 billion liters (7.06 billion U.S. liquid gallons), representing 26.1 percent of the world's total ethanol used as fuel in 2017". That is GA standard. Indeed, it is so detailed and comprehensive, it could be FA standard. But that is the sort of thing to be aiming for: 1) research the data, 2) identify the most appropriate data, 3) explain the data. SilkTork (talk) 11:03, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Good point. I checked and per person energy consumption is very close to the world average consumption per person - so I added that to put the number into context. Renamed "history" section to "History and projections for the future" and added info from new Sabancı report. Chidgk1 (talk) 13:51, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

• Major aspects. There's a "Wind farm in Turkey" image in the lead section, and there's a Wind power in Turkey article, but there's no dedicated section in this article on wind power in Turkey. Information about wind power is scattered through the article, but not concentrated in one place for the reader. Now, either we don't need a Wind power in Turkey article, or we need a section on it here in the parent article. SilkTork (talk) 14:17, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

I have removed the pic as wind power has less potential than solar. Because the Renewable energy in Turkey article is linked from here and that in turn links to Wind power in Turkey this is the grandparent article not the parent. Therefore I am against having a specific wind power section here partly because that risks too much duplication. Chidgk1 (talk) 08:42, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

• Prose. Even with some adjustments the prose is still fairly difficult to penetrate with a lot of statistics, topic-specific language which isn't explained - "primary energy" for example, short sentences which impede readability and give the impression that this article is notes toward a more developed article: "Most oil products are used for road transport." "A nuclear power plant is under construction." "This includes using energy efficiently. ", a number of one sentence paragraphs, and very short sub-sections. The overall feel is of a jerky, incomplete article. I'm placing it here more as a query than a fail, as I feel that with a good copy-edit the article would improve, but it's borderline, and coupled with other problems in the article would contribute towards the article not being passed as a GA. SilkTork (talk) 09:21, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Have put in for copy-edit at GOCE as you suggest.Chidgk1 (talk) 08:44, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

• Images. I've been playing around a little bit with the images, but they are still problematic. Essentially there are too many for the size of the article, and I'm not entirely convinced of their relevance to the article, nor how helpful they are. File:Renewable energy increases employment in Turkey.jpg has a projected graph which asserts that renewable energy could increase employment in Turkey, but neither the graph nor the text in the body, nor even the source cited explains how that increase in employment is to be achieved. The source cited is an "executive summary" which skips over the detail - it simply repeats the key message "Turkey can significantly boost gross employment by increasing the share of renewables." The bag of coal is a questionable image. I understand why it's there - it's to illustrate the Coal subsidies section, but it's not adding anything, and is not illustrating the coal subsidy, simply giving us a picture of a bag inside which we must assume there is some coal. See MOS:IMAGERELEVANCE. So: the images need either to be reduced or the article expanded; and the images chosen need either to support and illuminate what is said, or be left out. Better to not have an image than to have a useless one. SilkTork (talk) 09:38, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Removed some images and cited new report for employmentChidgk1 (talk) 09:29, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

• Layout consists of some very short sections. SilkTork (talk) 10:18, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Fail

• There is too much focus on Policy in an article this size. Either increase the size of this article or split off Policy into a sub-article (or, preferably, do both). SilkTork (talk) 09:53, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Will increase the size of the article e.g. by adding more about oil Chidgk1 (talk) 11:25, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

• Other than Gas, the coverage of Energy sources is quite slight. There are links to sub-articles. The sub-articles tend to be quite small themselves with a few details spread across several sections, as in Nuclear energy in Turkey, and Renewable energy in Turkey. Suggestion - Bring all the information from those articles into this article, and make them redirects to here until they can be built up further. See Wikipedia:Article size, Wikipedia:Splitting, and Wikipedia:Merging. SilkTork (talk) 10:00, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

I really don't want to do that because I think there is a far better chance of other editors working on those articles as separate articles than if they were in this one.Chidgk1 (talk) 11:43, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

General comments

• I note that Energy policy of Turkey has been merged here. What was the thinking behind that? Quite a chunk of the article appears to be about the energy policy rather than about energy in general. I'm not saying it was the wrong thing to do, but I am wondering about the rationale, especially as there are several other articles which are natural sub-articles of this article. One way of thinking about it is that Energy in Turkey is the parent article, out of which comes Coal in Turkey, Electricity sector in Turkey, Energy policy of Turkey, etc. If the Policy section were split out into a sub-article it would be over 10kb, which is plenty enough for a start article, and I'm sure could be built up more. That would also enable the Policy section here to be trimmed a little - at the moment it makes up the bulk of the article. SilkTork (talk) 14:10, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

The merger was suggested by @Kingsif: during a GA review of the policy article which said that article did not meet the broadness criterion: I had not considered a merger before but I still think it was the right thing to do and that it should not be put back into a separate article. I am happy with policy making up the bulk of the article because, as the government is very centralised and the energy market is quite regulated, policy determines most of what happens with energy here I think. Chidgk1 (talk) 11:23, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

• "Energy Market Regulatory Authority (epdk)" is an external link, though the epdk is not mentioned in the article. As they are the government regulatory authority for the article subject it would seem appropriate to have some information about them in the article. I assume the link is being used because there are reports on the site. Unfortunately I couldn't access them. Is that my browser's fault? SilkTork (talk) 09:51, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps their website was down. Please try again and check https://downforeveryoneorjustme.com/ and let me know if you still cannot access the website. I have added a sentence about them and linked to the Turkish article.Chidgk1 (talk) 12:04, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Pass/Hold/Fail

• On hold. Information has been gathered from several sources, but article needs further development to meet GA criteria. Decisions need to be made and work needs to be done on ensuring that there is appropriate coverage of all aspects of energy in Turkey. At the moment there is too much coverage (for the size of the article) on policy, and not enough coverage on several aspects of energy which currently are placed in some rather short sub articles. The Renewable energy in Turkey sub-article has 428 words, while the Policy section has 1595 words. Some balancing out needs to be done. Good Article reviews are typically put on hold for seven days, but I am always willing to keep a review on hold for as long as a nominator or other contributors wish, provided that there is both an intention to do the work, and reasonable progress is being made. What the article needs is building up, and then a decent copy-edit to ensure it is readable. The Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors may give assistance in copyediting, though only when the article is more developed than it is now. So I suggest building the article, tidying up yourself, and then requesting assistance from the Guild to finish it off. If you feel there will be too much work for you to do in a reasonable timescale (say, before the end of this year), then let me know and I'll close this review. SilkTork (talk) 10:31, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your very useful comments. I don't agree with all of them (hope to write some detailed discussion shortly) but I will make some changes then put the article in the queue for copyediting by the GOCE as you suggest. Thanks for your offer to resume but I think as it may be in the GOCE queue for a while it would be best if you fail it now. Also if someone else picks it up next time they will read it afresh and more easily spot any remaining readability problems. You may be fed up with the subject by now but if you are hooked take a look at Electricity sector in Turkey which is much shorter. Have a nice day. Chidgk1 (talk) 08:10, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Good luck with the development of the article. On request closing the review. SilkTork (talk) 09:45, 8 December 2020 (UTC)