Wikipedia:Peer review/List of coal fired power stations in Turkey/archive1

List of coal fired power stations in Turkey
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to know what needs to be improved before submitting it as a candidate featured list.

Thanks, Chidgk1 (talk) 14:30, 6 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Hi. I know it's been a while since you opened this but in case you still wanted some feedback I'd be happy to help:


 * For one, the lead should be much longer. Having an only 3-sentence lead will definitely not cut it. You should mention how many stations there are, as all that's said is details regarding coal specifics. Maybe give a brief history or a little background?
 * Have expanded - any more comments on lead?


 * The table will need scope cols and rows per MOS:ACCESS (specifically MOS:DTAB)
 * Done columns but not rows as that messed up sort


 * There are currently multiple date formats used. I'd pick one for consistency.
 * Not quite sure what you mean
 * This means that there are some that are YYYY-MM-DD and others that are Day Month Year. Just meant choose one or the other. – zmbro (talk) 20:30, 1 January 2020 (UTC)


 * I think all of these stations should have their own individual reference and have it be in their own column
 * But lots of refs are common to many rows so would not these be better staying on col header?


 * The ref section should be above the external links section
 * Done


 * You should give more background on specifics, like what is MW? coal type? type in general? expand on owners? It almost reads like the reader is assumed to know what all of this means.
 * Done by linking - anything important missing?


 * Are there any pictures of these stations?
 * Only the larger ones - should I add?


 * Why is the table not filled out completely? (No construction years?)
 * Some info not available - especially for smaller plants
 * Hope this helps :-) – zmbro (talk) 16:24, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks very helpful - will work on these after Xmas. The table is incomplete because I don't know all the info - I very much doubt I will be able to find out all the construction years.Chidgk1 (talk) 18:20, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't believe that will be able to cut it over at FLC. Are there any books on the history of this topic or something else related that would mention some more info? – zmbro (talk) 21:33, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Not that I have found yet (but I have a new contact who I will ask) but the official licence database shows the start date of the operating licence so I could put that instead. However a station could have been operating on a "prelicence" beforehand. Anyway if I cannot find better I will add the licence start dates with a footnote and let you know when I have gone through all your suggestions above in case you have time at that point to look again. Thanks again.Chidgk1 (talk) 18:43, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I have made some changes and comments above. When/if you have time perhaps you could take another lookChidgk1 (talk) 12:47, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Sounds good! I'll take another look tomorrow and respond to comments then. – zmbro (talk) 19:02, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
 * It definitely looks much better than before, although there is still large room for improvement:
 * "Although 3 large old plants are expected to be closed in 2020 because they are so polluting," 1. 3 → three per MOS:NUMS; 2. "so polluting" doesn't as very encyclopedic
 * Done
 * In the table, I would put an en dash (–) in boxes that are empty
 * Done
 * The scope rows are mainly an issue because of the way the table is coded I believe. I think if all cols are on one line and are separated by two "||"'s then the syntax doesn't recognize it as easily if every col had its own line and only had one "|"
 * Done
 * Why do some WRI's have question marks at the end? Is it because you're unsure or are they an actual part of the WRI?
 * If WRI don't update their database soon I am thinking of removing this column entirely as unreliable
 * All provinces and districts should be separated with a break; or at least have something to separate them visually, like a comma
 * Done
 * Commas should go after the phrase "as of Month 2019" (multiple occurrences)
 * Done
 * The status col: Really should just say "operational" and/or the opposite of that, and have anything else, like "(but would need update to meet 2020 standards[12])" (which isn't technically grammatically correct) be in notes. A major instance would be "As of December 2019 operational[13] but may be shutdown in 2020 due to local air pollution[2] (see article for details)"; also not positive if "(see article for details)" is appropriate
 * Changed "status" to "notes" as entire list is now only for active plants so by definition they are operational
 * Construction year col: "2005 (unit 1), 2009 (units 2–3)" capital U; to → '–' (i.e. 1987–2000); "2010 and 2016" → "2010, 2016"
 * Done
 * Why again are most "types" unknown?
 * Done for all plants over 100MW - cannot find info on others
 * Coal types should be capital
 * Done
 * Why are specific things in the table (like everything for 'Bolluk') sourced individually while others aren't? Does every general ref at the top of each col take care of each and every entry?
 * The refs on the column headers apply to all the rows but if better info is available for individual cells the ref for that is in the cell - it would be good if you have time to check this for mistakes.
 * Note 1: Really unsure if this is appropriate. Reads more like a textbook caption and not an encyclopedia note
 * This is needed so that readers can see how to get info from the license database - otherwise it would be hard for them to check what I have written
 * Note 2: Capital "Where" and '-' → '–' per MOS:DASH; also positive there should be a comma after 'known'
 * Done
 * All web refs should have access dates (ref 1 doesn't)
 * Could not find one without - I may have changed or deleted it earlier - if you notice one please let me know
 * Ref 8 is missing website and pub date
 * Ref numbers have probably changed since you wrote this - if there is still something missing please let me know
 * Ref 9 looks like a Wiki page and I don't believe that qualifies as an RS
 * removed and link above improved
 * When I click on refs 14 and 15, they download excel files, which to me don't qualify as RS's
 * I don't think the format of the file determines its reliability - we can see that because the url ends "gov.tr" that they are Turkish government spreadsheets
 * Ref 17 – don't need to abbreviate August
 * Done
 * I would try to use the IA bot to archive some of these
 * Why would we want to do that?
 * Don't think "List of existing coal plants in Turkey: Global Energy Monitor" qualifies to be included as an external link
 * Changed from their wiki to their map
 * What I've found so far. Again, great job on improving it, but it's still a ways to go. – zmbro (talk) 20:30, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Hi - thanks for those useful suggestions - if you have more ideas on what needs to be done before submitting it to featured list review I would be glad to hear them - by the way I have renamed it to List of active coal fired power stations in TurkeyChidgk1 (talk) 09:17, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Hello! Long time no speak. It's good to see you've gone through with my suggestions. However, I'm still not positive that it meets FL quality yet. It's certainly better off than other lists that have appeared at FLC lately but if you would like me too, I can post this over at the FLC talk page and ping a few regulars over there to see if they can give you a few suggestions? – zmbro (talk) 01:28, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes thanks that would be good. If you prefer we could first close this and I could request another peer review under the new name if that makes it easier? Chidgk1 (talk) 06:55, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
 * No I don't think that's necessary. I'll go ahead and post over there. – zmbro (talk) 16:23, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Comments – Here are a few quick thoughts from me on the state of the list:
 * One of the big issues I see that will cause problems at FLC is the formatting of the references. The web sources all need publishers, access dates, and dates of publication if available, and several of the references don't have them. FLC reviewers will check for these items, so some cleanup work now will save you time later.
 * Done


 * Several references have part of all of their title in all caps, which goes against the Manual of Style. The all caps should be taken out.
 * Done


 * In addition, the author of ref 11 has their last name in all caps for some reason.
 * Done


 * While the lead has apparently been expanded from when the PR started, I still think more could be added to it. Items like which station has the greatest capacity and which provinces/districts have the most stations seem interesting enough to include, as does what the first station was.
 * Added info re age and clustering, but not first station as that is now a museum and this list is only about active stations.


 * "Most is generated from imported hard coal and almost all the rest from local lignite." Most what? Electricity? If so, this sentence should say that instead of leaving the reader uncertain.
 * Done


 * "Although five old plants were shutdown end of 2019...". This should read "were shut down at the end of 2019...".
 * Done


 * Ref 8 should go after the comma, not before.
 * Done


 * I've never been a fan of sections titled "List" in these types of pages, as the name of the page already says it's a list. Try changing it to something like "Active coal fired power stations in Turkey".
 * Done


 * Note 1: Even in a note, "Don't bother with 'Tesis Durumu='Kismi Isletmede' as it contains several errors" doesn't start with the professional level of writing expected of an FL. This could start "Ignore" and it would be a bit better.
 * Done


 * Note 3: I see "it is operational" and "are operational". This can be either singular or plural, but not both. Pick one style and stick with it throughout the sentence.
 * Done

Giants2008 ( Talk ) 20:35, 4 February 2020 (UTC)