Talk:Renewable energy in Turkey/GA2

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: Aintabli (talk · contribs) 05:11, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Whew—unreviewed for 6 months... Hope I will be able to complete the review in a week. Aintabli (talk) 05:11, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

It is reasonably well written.
a. (prose, spelling, and grammar):

b. (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a. (reference section):

b. (citations to reliable sources): Sources are a mixture of primary, secondary, and tertiary sources, from news reports to academic papers. Didn't notice any sources that could be questionable.

c. (OR):

d. (copyvio and plagiarism):
It is broad in its coverage.
a. (major aspects):

b. (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias: Appears to be neutral. Critical views are also included. Nothing about the language sticks out in terms of bias.
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
a. (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales):

b. (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall:
Pass/fail:

(Criteria marked are unassessed)

Images[edit]

I can't access the source of https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Wind_speed_in_Turkey.png, because the link is dead. It may be better to remove it. Aintabli (talk) 05:21, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Removed from this article and made a note to myself to investigate further and delete if there is copyvio Chidgk1 (talk) 06:52, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Uploader is still active on Turkish Wikipedia so asked at https://tr.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kullan%C4%B1c%C4%B1_mesaj%3AEstin_Gi%C3%A7_Gi%C3%A7&diff=29454476&oldid=29011260

whether he is sure about the copyright Chidgk1 (talk) 07:16, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think they are active. In their last edit, they basically said that they are quitting, so no need to wait for their answer in my opinion. Also, thank you for your quick response. Aintabli (talk) 14:51, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Wind_speed_in_Turkey.png Chidgk1 (talk) 08:16, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sources[edit]

Not a major problem, but Chidgk1, could you go over the sources and check that they are properly cited? As of this revision [1], the reference no. 35 seems to be a bare url. Aintabli (talk) 23:49, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, sorry for the delay. Aintabli (talk) 23:50, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No probs - your intermittent energy is valuable to me. Hope to do sources tomorrow Chidgk1 (talk) 04:44, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Done Chidgk1 (talk) 08:09, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lead[edit]

There are many sources and good amount of content that appear solely in the lead. Similarly, the lead delves into too much detail, such as referring to a specific study. Is it possible if much of the content in the lead is distributed to relevant sections (both old or new), and summarized instead, preferably without the sources? The lead, except for the first paragraph, appears to be discussing the future projects and the potential of the country; I believe these could be easily grouped under a new section (and summarized in the lead). There could be two to three sentences summarizing the sections on politics and economics. Aintabli (talk) 20:45, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Chidgk1, sorry if I am becoming a hassle, but could you expand the lead by summarizing the main points of the article, including the portions you have moved to a new section? Aintabli (talk) 23:21, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes certainly - just trying to improve a few more cites but have been unable to update the article for past half hour - possibly techies are doing something - will try later Chidgk1 (talk) 06:33, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have expanded the lead to 3 paras with what I thought most important but if you see something else you think important I can easily add a 4th para. I left the cites in the lead in case of challenges - but if you feel strongly I can remove them. Chidgk1 (talk) 07:06, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I believe when the article's overall size is taken into account, the lead may still need some more expansion. For example, I feel that only giving a ratio for each energy may be too broad. Since solar power is an important renewable energy in Turkey due to the climate, a sentence about that could be added. The lead could also touch on the specific regions that each type of energy predominates or has the potential to do so. Perhaps, adding one sentence per each section and sub-section could be a good rule of thumb. You could add two or more sentences per (sub-)section if necessary. You can reword the topic sentences of each paragraph/section and add them to the lead. Aintabli (talk) 21:42, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes you are right - hope to do that tomorrow or Monday Chidgk1 (talk) 12:39, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have expanded the lead but am open to further suggestions Chidgk1 (talk) 10:06, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Chidgk1 I have also tried to expand the lead. I added a mention of wind power and bioenergy. You might want to check the lead in case there are further points you might want readers to get just by reading the lead. You are also free to (and I encourage) check my additions and tweak the wording, move phrases/sentences, as you see fit. When done, ping me, and I will make one last check and pass the review of the lead. Aintabli (talk) 16:25, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Are you able to check any remaining non-lead points whilst I am looking at the lead? Because any further changes we make in the body of the article might need to be reflected in the lead. So perhaps it will be best for you to approve the lead as the very last action? Chidgk1 (talk) 06:04, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. Will start checking the body for OR, plagiarism, and wording later today. Are you planning on adding a significant amount of content to the body? Aintabli (talk) 06:11, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not planning on adding any more info to body unless you spot anything missing, except possibly a couple more sentences on sector coupling (e.g. using excess RE for desalination). It will be useful if the GHG report due to be submitted to UNFCCC in next 10 days says something about sector coupling but I very much doubt it will. However I suspect we will find sentences which are in the wrong place and need moving around. Chidgk1 (talk) 07:04, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I had noticed this earlier, but since we are nearing the last phase, I would suggest that you expand Renewable energy in Turkey#History before I reach that section, because there are currently only two vague sentences. You could also expand Renewable energy in Turkey#Health benefits or include it in Renewable energy in Turkey#Future. Aintabli (talk) 06:27, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Have expanded those sections Chidgk1 (talk) 09:15, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Have revised lead - let me know what you think Chidgk1 (talk) 09:48, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

OR, plagiarism, and language[edit]

Verified FN 8 (as of this revision) and the sentence it comes after.Aintabli (talk) 14:40, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Renewable energy in Turkey#Solar power looks good. Aintabli (talk) 15:00, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Many of these sections are basically the leads of the main articles, so many lack the needed reference. Perhaps, I made the wrong decision by having Chidgk1 remove some of the references in the lead, which would complicate the situation this article were to be excerpted. In that case, Chidgk1, you might want to be extra cautious about edits (unsourced changes) in the excerpted articles and disregard what I said about removing references in the lead, which was a personal choice. Aintabli (talk) 15:10, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. I have pondered whether this article should be excerpted anywhere and concluded that I don’t want to. As few other people edit most Turkey articles I doubt anyone else will do such a thing. So I think we are safe not citing all the sentences in the lead of this article for now. Chidgk1 (talk) 09:52, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty sure all the excerpted leads are fully cited but if not please let me know. Perhaps I should also add hidden comments to the tops of those articles to tell future editors that they must remain fully cited? Chidgk1 (talk) 09:58, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That could work. Moving on with the review... Aintabli (talk) 17:58, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Done Chidgk1 (talk) 06:03, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The first paragraph of Renewable energy in Turkey#Economics needs clarification. What's the World Bank's plan? Is it related to what the next sentence says? Which one is beneficial? The World Bank's plan or the increase in renewables? Aintabli (talk) 19:36, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Tweaked section - hope better now - I don’t usually like using a lot of quotes but have added some here from the banks as they have explained it better than I could Chidgk1 (talk) 09:49, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comments[edit]

I am sorry for this abrupt change in my decision, but I didn't notice the recent edits you made, especially to the lead, while I was looking at the body. I believe we have moved further away from how the lead should have been. It directly dives into details about Izmir and old mills. I couldn't find any such sourced statement in the body. More importantly, such trivial details prevent the reader from getting a broader picture. Anyone without an idea about Turkey could easily get confused from the first several sentences of the lead. I believe it would be better if we first mention which renewable energy has more potential in which region and constitutes what ratio of the national electricity, since Turkey isn't limited to Bodrum and Izmir. While these problems could have been solved in a short time under this review, we need a major rewrite in parts of the article, and I believe closing this review would be more beneficial instead for more flexibility. Overall, a second failed review does not mean that this time was not well-spent. I think there were some important improvements made and such points were raised here. This review can be used as a guide for a future nomination. Aintabli (talk) 16:12, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes your review has been helpful thanks. Apart from the lead can you outline where and what major rewrites are needed? Hopefully I will come back to this article after the election as whoever wins they may change things such as interest rates or fossil fuel subsidies - which could well affect the viability of new projects Chidgk1 (talk) 17:04, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A considerable portion of the Politics section was not directly relevant to politics, which I relocated. The remaining content in that section needs some more introductory text and more content. You have touched on a great point. After the elections, we may have some more content to add to this section. The war in Ukraine may well fit politics. Given that the closing of the review allows for more flexibility, you might want to reconsider the use of excerpts, since these may cause undue attention to points which could be included in other sections like history. Although not a red flag, the wording could be further polished by reducing the over-used verbs such as "suggests" or "says". Aintabli (talk) 17:27, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]