Talk:Electricity sector in Turkey/GA5

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

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

07:03, 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)
 * 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)

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)

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 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 - 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:
 * 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.
 * 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.


 * 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.
 * 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.


 * 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).
 * 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, 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,. ~Styyx Talk? ^-^ 14:16, 18 March 2022 (UTC)


 * 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)
 * 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, and  to see if they have any further comments.  ~Styyx Talk? ^-^ 19:47, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
 * 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. 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)


 * 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)