Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of active coal fired power stations in Turkey/archive1


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was archived by Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 01:03, 20 July 2020 (UTC).

List of active coal fired power stations in Turkey

 * Nominator(s): Chidgk1 (talk) 11:00, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because these power stations are the main contributor to greenhouse gas emissions by Turkey so it would be great if someone at COP26 could discuss them. As this is my first attempt to get anything featured I suspect there may be a lot I need to improve.Chidgk1 (talk) 11:00, 6 February 2020 (UTC) Very nice list, hopefully it'll be deleted someday for being empty.
 * Thanks. I got the idea from List of active coal fired power stations in the United Kingdom and List of coal fired power stations in Australia and once this one is featured I hope others will copy the format. Although Global Energy Monitor have a useful world list I guess they have to put most of their effort into the biggest countries like China and are not able to include the smaller power stations.


 * The hatnotes links can be included as in-line or see also links, not needed at the very top for disambiguation
 * Done


 * -> "so the plants are the largest"
 * Done


 * I could follow the note on searching the main source, but perhaps you could give the translations for the selection names and/or link directly to a translated version. Not sure if there's a guideline for this.
 * Done (but when I tried to search from the translated version it just hung)


 * Three say local coal – I see this is what the database says but should be lignite right? All the same for the Soma plants.
 * You are almost certainly right but I have not yet found a source to cite to confirm that


 * What's the point of having the license number? Seems like internal data of no use to the public.
 * This is because the names can change with change of ownership or in sources can sometimes be confusingly different for the same plant or confusingly similar for different plants (for example Soma and Bekirli)


 * "Note:" is not necessary
 * Done


 * The linked page doesn't actually have details about capacity payments: The table marks a number and eligibility but I don't know how to interpret it.
 * I can easily change the column heading from "Capacity Mechanism Payment (₺m)" to "Capacity Mechanism Payment (millions of lira)" or somesuch if you think that is clearer.

Reywas92Talk 20:36, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Is there anything more I need to improve on this please?Chidgk1 (talk) 14:36, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I think you need to resolve the discrepancy in [Note 1] at the top, but otherwise I don't see any further issues. Reywas92Talk 23:02, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Sorry I am afraid I don't have update access to government websites! I just checked the Turkish page and it says 68 "santraller" which definitely means "plants" not "units". But I cannot believe that is right. If you like I will write to the ministry and ask but I doubt they would reply.Chidgk1 (talk) 14:24, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
 * However I wonder if we should have a row for each unit like the Global Energy Monitor database. Does anyone have an opinion on that? Chidgk1 (talk) 14:48, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Nice list and great graphic. You might consider some of the following:    23:40, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I analyzed the page for dead links. This added some archiving of 47 links
 * Thanks - I have never done anything with archiving - if anyone thinks automatic archiving might not be enough let me know and I will read up on manual archiving.

|scope="row" style="text-align: left"|
 * I think that the first cell in each row would look better if it was left aligned, ie adding
 * Done


 * Format external links and add accessdate, i.e.
 * Formatted but I think the access date in the licence query and co2 refs is enough as those will change over time.
 * Formatted but I think the access date in the licence query and co2 refs is enough as those will change over time.


 * Notes column might be better as the last column.  I would also include any references in this column.
 * Moved to second from last because very few people will need to read licence number - re refs if I put them all in that col it would not be obvious which cell they refer to e.g. the ref that Çan-2 type is combined cycle.


 * the year and CO2 emission columns would be better right justified. Use a break, if there is additional text required. Generally, all numbers should be right justified.
 * Right justfied. Re additional text - should I have a row for each unit does anyone think?


 * The open street maps link does pull up anthing because there are no coordinates on the page.
 * Removed co-ord mapping box as it seems not to find the co-ords in the map source
 * If you want the Open Street map to work, you would have to include the coords in the table. See List of plantations in North Carolina for an example.     14:03, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks - I think I may use that in individual articles about each plant rather than here as the map gives a general idea.


 * Use the template for notes that should include references, ie Note 1 and 6.  See List of North Carolina militia units in the American Revolution for an example of how this is done. Note 5 should be a complete sentence.   14:03, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Done thanks

Thanks to everyone who has commented so far. If I have not resolved your comments or you have more please let me know. Also it would be great if anyone who has not yet commented could take a quick look as I suspect there is more which could be improved. Chidgk1 (talk) 09:08, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Comments by Dudley

 * It does not look right citing a newspaper report to say official figures on the number of power stations are wrong.
 * You are correct, however the newspaper was with 2 government ministers, and their number matches the number of entries in the Energy Market Regulatory Authority database (cited on column headers) which is also an official source.
 * So why not give the Energy Market Regulatory Authority database as your source - although I realise you may also need the newspaper for the ones that are shut down. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:48, 16 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Might the difference in the figures be due to some power stations having more than one plant?
 * "Power plant" is a synonym for "Power station". "Station" is more common in British English. Maybe "plant" is more common in American English. Certainly some stations are very close together but on separate sites, such as ZETES-1, ZETES-2 and ZETES-3, however I have listed them separately. Whereas if I understand right if a station has multiple "units" they would be on the same site.


 * Ref 5 does not support 47 power stations, so far as I can see.
 * Ah well spotted - I have moved ref 3 to a better place: 52 - 5 =47


 * "over twice that of a gas-fired power station, so the power stations are the largest contributor to greenhouse gas emissions by Turkey" is not referenced.
 * Reference added


 * "totalling almost 1 billion lira,[9][10] and in 2018 US$4.4 billion was spent on coal imports" Using two different currencies in conjuntion is unhelpful to the reader. I would provide a conversion of lira to dollars (at a specified date shown in a note).
 * Done - did not bother with note as very approx but can add if needed. Template:To USD has not yet had 2019 added - User:EncMstr has asked IMF but perhaps they have other priorities now!


 * "to give lignite burning power stations dispatch priority" What does this mean?
 * Clarified the link to read "priority over other types of generation."


 * "and despite abundant sun and wind, Emba Hunutlu is under construction" This is not supported by the reference.
 * Improved references


 * I regret that I have to oppose due to the unreferenced non-WP:NPOV comments. Dudley Miles (talk) 13:09, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your useful review. Could you let me know if you spot any more unreferenced non-WP:NPOV comments. If I am unable to reference them I can easily remove them. Chidgk1 (talk) 16:52, 16 April 2020 (UTC)


 * The referencing is improved but some comments in the lead still read as as POV opinions rather than a neutral encyclopedia article. Expressions such as "and despite abundant sun and wind", "although they will lose money" and "may create financial problems for power station operators" should either be omitted or attributed, just as the Republican People's Party claim is attributed.
 * I have attributed the comments and added reasoning in support of new lignite power:"The Turkey Wealth Fund, the country's sovereign wealth fund, is financing it because the country needs to maintain energy security by reducing fossil fuel imports.". I did not cite abundant sunshine as I assumed that is common knowledge - if any cites are still missing please let me know.


 * The comment " perhaps they are confusing with the number of units or counting power stations which were shut down much earlier" is also unreferenced personal opinion. I suggest moving the note to after ref 4 and saying maybe: "The Energy Ministry gives a figure of 67 power plants, but does not list them and the Energy Market Regulatory Authority database lists 52.
 * Done


 * There is an error in note 2 as it has a stray . I cannot open the source as I do not have a program to open a zip file on my current computer, but I assume that it is still a valid source.
 * Yes it is published in April each year and only the most recent spreadsheet within the zip is needed but I don't know any way to directly reference only that one


 * smokestack measurements" should be linked or explained - and the relevance of Sentinel-7 satellites should be explained.
 * Done


 * Do the dashes in the table mean information not available? I suggest replacing them with "Not known", except in the Notes column which should be blank if there is no note.
 * Done


 * Thanks for your amendments. I am close to removing my oppose, but the lead is still a bit too much opinion rather than a neutral summary of facts. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:48, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Support. Looks fine now. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:37, 19 April 2020 (UTC)


 * - I suspect there is more needs to be fixed which I have not spotted.

Also fresh eyes may notice any readability issues - if other people have a chance to look at this.

Comments by Guerillero

 * I have no idea what the lettered footnotes point to to even start looking at their reliablity


 * Yes note 4 was confusingly written. If it is still unclear please let me know.


 * Greenpeace isn't a RS
 * Replaced with Nature


 * You are using three citation methods
 * I have removed "harvid". In general I was trying to use the automatic cite generation on the visual editor as that was easiest for me as the writer. But for long documents I thought I ought to list them in sources. But I would welcome advice if there is a better way.


 * Climate Transparency isn't an RS
 * Replaced with FT


 * Health and Environment Alliance isn't an RS
 * Removed as duplicate as the fact is cited in the government source in the refs column


 * coalexit.org isn't a RS
 * It is only to cite that Diler is on their list

I'm going to assume all of the Turkish sources are reliable -- Guerillero &#124;  Parlez Moi  15:39, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
 * What does EÜ/4969-240/2940 mean? Also, I would remove the totals column -- Guerillero &#124;  Parlez Moi  18:19, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Totals removed. EÜ/4969-240/2940 is the number of a licence allowing the power station to operate. As every row has a licence number, rather than explaining in every row how to query the database I would like to explain in one place. But if you as an expert Wikipedian looking at this for the second time are not getting it then a new reader will have no chance. Therefore I obviously need to clarify more. On the other hand I don't think it should be in the main text because only a few readers will need to verify the info. Possibly what is obscuring the important point about querying a single plant is that originally I was trying to query all coal-fired power stations because it was very hard to identify the small ones. But that query will likely not be needed so much in future as I am almost certain no new small coal plants will be built. So I will split that off into a separate note. I wonder if I can also put a screenshot in the footnote.
 * Amended footnote and added screenshot. Is that clear to new readers now? Any more questions or suggestions?
 * Perfect! Support -- Guerillero &#124;  Parlez Moi  14:28, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Question for first time readers
As is being proposed for deletion can you understand the refs column without looking at it? Chidgk1 (talk) 16:27, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I didn't get a chance to see it before it was deleted... The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 08:41, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Comments from TRM

 * Structure is still a bit weird, five lead paragraphs is contrary to MOS:LEAD.
 * combined first two paras as both were very short

Sorry what is unclear? I have been looking at this article for so long it is hard to see it from the point of view of a first time reader.
 * "Lignite (brown coal) is mined locally, whereas almost all hardcoal" are both required? It's unclear to me.
 * I'm not clear about why we're discussing this, i.e. perhaps say something like "coal-fired power stations require both lignite and hardcoal" or similar before saying where they're sourced. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 08:02, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Excellent - This is exactly the kind of comment I need where something is unclear to a reader new to the subject. Rejigged to I hope imply that a particular power station almost always either burns lignite or hardcoal and is not switched (there was an exception which I think was brief but I cannot now find the newspaper article) - if still unclear please tell me and I could write it more explicitly e.g. I could put in text "a particular power station almost always either burns lignite or hardcoal and is not switched". Chidgk1 (talk) 08:37, 10 June 2020 (UTC)


 * What's thermal coal?
 * linked to definition

I thought the link might be useful to the reader, as it can be hard to find info on Turkish coal mines. But if there a problem with linking to the category I will unlink it. Should I?
 * " near local coalmines," we don't normally link to categories.
 * It could be a "see also" I suppose.  The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 08:02, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
 * moved to "see also" Chidgk1 (talk) 08:44, 10 June 2020 (UTC)


 * "Five old power " old? What does that really mean?
 * quantified "old" as "20th century"


 * "remains shutdown as" shut down.
 * changed


 * "building[17] Afşin-Elbistan C" move that ref.
 * moved

On the other hand it is easier to check the cites that way because you know exactly which cite is for which piece of info. Is the reading experience that bad it outweighs the ease of cite checking? Again hard for me to tell as I have read it that often.
 * Too many refs mid-sentence, makes for poor reading experience.
 * For me, the jarring placement is worse than waiting to the end of the sentence or some mid-sentence punctuation to find the ref. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 08:02, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
 * moved refs after punctuation Chidgk1 (talk) 08:50, 10 June 2020 (UTC)


 * "list of important power stations in Turkey." important? That's pure POV.
 * removed "important"


 * "Captive power plant No output to grid Jan-May 2020" needs some punctuation and compliance with MOS:DASH.
 * changed


 * Do blank cells mean not known? If so, say it.
 * changed


 * Notes column don't usually need to sort, there's little use in sorting free text.
 * removed sort


 * In sortable tables, linked items should be linked each time.
 * done - if anyone spots any I have missed let me know or link


 * Several notes include inline external links which we don't do.
 * changed to refs

Is there a problem with that?
 * We just don't put external links as part of the prose. Either format them as references or add them as external links, but notes have to be verifiable either way. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 08:02, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Ref 46 is showing an error.
 * I cannot see an error message - maybe someone else or a bot fixed it


 * Second source has a spaced hyphen when it should be an unspaced en-dash.
 * I cannot see that error - maybe someone else or a bot fixed it


 * Template:Power stations in Turkey doesn't have a link to this article so the template shouldn't be there.
 * linked to this article

That's all I have on a really quick pass, it's an oppose for now. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 08:41, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

I think I have covered all your comments so far. Can you let me know what else I need to do to bring it up to scratch please? Chidgk1 (talk) 16:31, 10 June 2020 (UTC)


 * More comments on the lead
 * "around 50 coal-fired power stations in Turkey with a total capacity of about 17 gigawatts (GW), generate" - there is no reason for that comma after the brackets
 * "However those burning lignite tend to be near local coalmines" - don't think the first word is needed
 * "Turkish lignite is very low quality" => "Turkish lignite is of very low quality"
 * "Lignite burning power stations" => "Lignite-burning power stations" (and later in the sentence too)
 * "has applied to the government for them to be shutdown" => "has applied to the government for them to be shut down"
 * "So public information on the carbon-dioxide emissions of individual power stations may not be available" => "Public information on the carbon-dioxide emissions of individual power stations may therefore not be available"
 * "Much of the operational fleet was built in the 21st century: however" - colon should be a comma
 * "and 2020 drop in demand" => "and drop in demand in 2020"
 * I'll take another look at the table later..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:25, 12 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Thanks - I changed most to your suggestions - but for one or two I thought you must be American until I looked at your profile - perhaps you have been more influenced by the USA than me. Or maybe British English has changed since I left a decade ago. Chidgk1 (talk) 18:12, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Why do you say that......? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:26, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Sorry didn't mean to be rude - it was a bit of a throwaway comment. By the way if it is easier for you feel free to make copyedits directly on the article. I am unlikely to revert anything unless it accidentally changes the meaning. But if there is anything time consuming or difficult for a new reader to follow or anything else which needs fixing please let me know. Chidgk1 (talk) 16:53, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
 * don't worry, I didn't take offence, I was just curious as to which of my suggestions gave you the impression that I was American? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:42, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
 * It was the third one - but even though I thought "of" was redundant it was still useful as it prompted me to find some actual figures. I now need a coal expert to say whether over 5 kg of CO2 per kWh generated is the highest in the world. If I offer a bet that it is would anybody reading this take me up on it?

What still needs to be done please?
What still needs to be done please? Chidgk1 (talk) 16:27, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Noted a few things:
 * add a comma after "For details of annual capacity payments"
 * Done


 * is it necessary to clarify that lignite is (brown coal)?
 * I think it is worth the extra 2 words to avoid some readers needing to click the link. Because "lignite" is a fairly unusual word I suspect many readers would not know the meaning.


 * could you rework and clarify the sentence "A court order to shut 3 polluting power stations in the 1990s was not enforced." Was the court order in the 1990s? Or did the order want them shut down by the 1990s?
 * The source says that in "1996 the Aydın Administrative Court issued an interlocutory injunction for suspension of the power plants' operation" - I am not a lawyer but if I understand that right it means that the court ordered that the plants stop generating immediately while the court case(s) were ongoing - so the answer to your question is "both" - but I am reluctant to make the sentence any longer in this article (it could perhaps be said in more detail in one or more of the articles on the individual plants) - if you or anyone can improve it please be bold and do it.
 * How about: "A 1996 court order to shut 3 polluting power stations was not enforced." ~  HAL  333  13:52, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Done thanks
 * There is some ironic humor later in the source in that the polluting power stations did not get closed but some local farmers did receive compensation for damage to their tobacco crops! The 90s were a different age!

Nice job overall. ~ HAL  333  03:07, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Support I think I’m set for life in terms of familiarity with Turkish coal power-plants. I would appreciate if you could check out Featured list candidates/Woody Harrelson filmography/archive1. Thanks! ~ HAL  333  14:45, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Comments First of all, congratulations on nominating your first list to FL status – it's always nice to see some new faces around here. From a quick look over the list, I think this might be a difficult one to get up to FL-standard, particularly on the English Wikipedia.
 * My first issue is with the sourcing. It's a shame that so few of the references contain wikilinks to the articles on the publishers – this would make it easier to check the reliability of the citations. Oxford Institute for Energy Studies, Vox, Daily Sabah and Kathimerini are the first few I saw in the references that could be easily wikilinked. Once all the publishers have been wikilinked, it'll be easier to review the sources.
 * Done - if there are difficulties with particular sources please let me know which so I can try to find alternative sources.


 * There's a real lack of clarity and certainty in the prose of this article, which unfortunately begins right from the very first sentence ("Around 50 power stations with a capacity of about 17 gigawatts generate about a third of the electricity"). It's a shame that we can't even say for certain how many active coal-fired power stations there are in Turkey – the Energy Ministry says 67, the Energy Market Regulatory Authority says 52, but the table onlt lists 50. This feels like a really basic fact that a featured list should be able to state clearly. "However" is listed in WP:EDITORIALIZING as a word to watch – it appears five times in this article.
 * Removed "however". Redefined the list as not including pure autoproducers - thus (barring errors) the exact number of stations is now in the first sentence Because pure autoproducers don't need licenses so I cannot be sure there are none.


 * The map might be better served in its own level 2 header un the table, rather than tacked on at the end of the lead.
 * Moved as suggested but I am guessing it does not need a header as I suppose screen readers would be able to read the caption.


 * "For details of annual capacity payments, please see the list of power stations in Turkey." -> Put  directly under the "Active coal-fired power stations in Turkey" header instead.
 * Done


 * "wikitable sortable" -> "wikitable plainrowheaders sortable"
 * Done but I could not understand from the "Layout of table headers" subsection in Manual_of_Style/Accessibility/Data_tables_tutorial why we want to do that


 * The Station column is really cluttered and confusing – I don't think there's any need to include all three names by which a power station in known. Just pick whichever is the WP:COMMONNAME and use that.
 * The reason for including all the names is that different sources use different names so if I take them out completely it may be confusing for future editors.
 * But you are right they are clutter - perhaps I should move them to be with the licence numbers?


 * On a related note, having 50 footnotes, each containing nothing more than a station's license number, isn't very aesthetically pleasing. I realise that it's necessary to include the license numbers so that readers can verify data for themselves on the Turkish Energy Market Regulatory Authority. Perhaps a compromise might be to include the license numbers in a small font under the station names would become  . Let me know what you think of this idea.
 * I moved them out of the table in response to a previous comment. Although I see your point I feel they should remain in the footnotes because such a tiny proportion of readers will actually need them. I guess very few readers will actually look at the footnotes and there is so much info in the table already I am reluctant to add more unless it is really useful.


 * Where is the construction/operational start year sourced from? The first one that I checked is Cenal, which is listed in the table as 2017, but, when I check the Turkish Energy Market Regulatory Authority database, the only years that I can see are 2013 and 2062.
 * For the small stations it is generally from the EMRA database as there is no other source. But for large and medium stations (like Cenal) your question leads to a wider discussion which I will ping you with below.


 * Is that the standard way or presenting provice and district in Turkey, with one on top of the other? I'd have thought that, for example, "Çanakkale, Çan" would be clearer than "Çanakkale" on top of Çan".
 * I just did it like that to make the column narrower as there are so many columns - if you or others have a strong opinion let me know and I will change it.


 * Note 6: rather than wikilinking to a separate article, it might be a good idea to provide a sample calculation so that readers can follow the working themselves.
 * I would rather stick with the link as it goes directly to the sample calculation in the other article - which is good and needed there also I think - don't want to just duplicate it here.


 * Citations 6, 21, 26, 36, 37 and 39 aren't working.
 * Fixed


 * Citations 11 and 13 are missing publishers (for 11 it's Routledge; for 13 it's the Council of Europe). There may be others.
 * Fixed


 * Per MOS:ELLIPSIS, precomposed ellipses characters (…) should be replaced with three periods (...).
 * Fixed


 * Fixed
 * Fixed


 * There is a lot in this article that isn't standard for a featured list. I don't think I've ever seen a FL that includes wikilinks in the column headers of a table, and I've certainly never seen one that links to a Google Translate version of a web source or instructs readers to tick "I am not a robot". For this reason (and the reasons above), I feel that this article needs more discussion before it's promoted, so I'm afraid that I oppose for now. A Thousand Doors (talk &#124; contribs) 17:52, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I suspect very few readers click the wikilinks or look at footnotes. It seems unlikely the footnote explaining how to query the source will distract casual readers, but for someone using the article as a starting point for research the query explanation could save a minute or two of their valuable time.

Thank you very much for those valuable comments. Related to your comments and my replies above about the Station and Start Year columns I am wondering whether there should be a row for each active unit. The larger stations usually consist of several units often built and closed down at different times. This would make the info about units currently in the notes column machine readable and would allow easy cross ref with the "table" tab on https://endcoal.org/tracker/. However it would increase the number of rows and the size of the Station column. Looking forward to further comments from you and anyone else on this or anything else. Chidgk1 (talk) 11:14, 23 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Looks good to me. Jimknut (talk) 17:54, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks . If you mean the whole article looks good please could you support it being a featured list by writing "support" in bold. Or are you replying to the above question by saying a "units" column would look good? Or both? Chidgk1 (talk) 19:31, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Giants2008 ( Talk ) 22:22, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.